[Federal Register: September 11, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 175)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 51713-51716]
[DOCID:fr11se07-7]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2006-1023; FRL-8464-8]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Minnesota

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a site-specific revision to the Minnesota
State Implementation Plan (SIP) for particulate matter less than 10
microns (PM-10) for Lafarge North America Corporation (Lafarge), Childs
Road Terminal located in Saint Paul, Ramsey County, Minnesota. In its
December 18, 2006, submittal, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
(MPCA) requested that EPA approve certain conditions contained in
Lafarge's federally enforceable state operating permit (FESOP) into the
Minnesota PM SIP. The request is approvable because it satisfies the
requirements of the Clean Air Act (Act). We are also taking action on
Minnesota's request to revoke the Administrative Order for Lafarge that
EPA had previously approved into the Minnesota SIP. The rationale for
the approval and other information are provided in this rulemaking
action.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective November 13, 2007,
unless EPA receives adverse comments by

October 11, 2007. If adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a
timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register
informing the public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2006-1023, by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for

submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    5. Hand Delivery: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding Federal
holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2006-1023. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,

unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail.

The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,

which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov

your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available
on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends
that you include your name and other contact information in the body of
your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
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 http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This Facility is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. We
recommend that you telephone Christos Panos, Environmental Engineer, at
(312) 353-8328 before visiting the Region 5 office.

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

I. General Information
    1. What Is the Background for This Action?
    2. Why Is EPA Taking This Action?
    3. What Is a ``Title I Condition?''
II. What Action Is EPA Taking?
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. General Information

1. What Is the Background for This Action?

    The Lafarge Childs Road Terminal is located at 2145 Childs Road in
Saint Paul, Ramsey County, Minnesota. Minnesota originally submitted
Administrative Orders for the Lafarge Childs Road Terminal as part of
the PM-10 SIP for Ramsey County in 1991 and 1992. These Administrative
Orders contain the PM-10 emission limits and operating restrictions
imposed on the facility to provide for attainment and maintenance of
the PM-10 NAAQS. Subsequent revisions to the Administrative Orders were
submitted in 1994 and 1997. The following Lafarge Childs Road Terminal
Administrative Order revisions have been approved into the Minnesota
PM-10 SIP: (1) Second Amended Findings and Order, dated and effective
November 30, 1992, approved into the SIP February 15, 1994 (60 FR
7218); (2) Amendment One to Second Amended Findings and Order, dated
and effective December 21, 1994, approved into the SIP June 13, 1995
(60 FR 31088); and, (3) Amendment Two to Second Amended Findings and
Order, dated and effective September 23, 1997, approved into the SIP
February 8, 1999 (64 FR 5936).
    The SIP revision submitted by MPCA on December 18, 2006, consists
of a FESOP issued to the Lafarge Childs Road Terminal, which serves as
a joint Title I/FESOP document. The PM-10 control measures,
recordkeeping and reporting requirements contained in the
Administrative Orders previously approved in the PM-10 SIP are now
identified as ``Title I condition: SIP for PM-10 NAAQS'' in the joint
Title I/FESOP document. The state has requested that EPA approve the
following: (1) The inclusion into the Minnesota PM SIP only the
portions of Minnesota Air Emission Permit No. 12300391-002, issued to
Lafarge North America Corporation--Childs Road Terminal on November 17,
2006, cited as ``Title I condition: SIP for PM-10 NAAQS''; and, (2)
that the Administrative Orders for Lafarge--Childs Road Terminal
currently included in Minnesota's PM-10 SIP be subsequently revoked.
    Minnesota held a public hearing regarding the SIP revision and the
joint Title I/FESOP document on November 16, 2006. No comments were
received at the public meeting and only EPA provided comments during
the 30 day public comment period.

2. Why Is EPA Taking This Action?

    EPA is taking this action because: (1) Lafarge has proposed changes
to the allowable methods for delivery of cementitious products which
require changes to certain SIP conditions; and (2) EPA and the state
have agreed to the transfer of SIP requirements from Administrative
Orders into joint Title I/Title V-FESOP documents. Further, the state's
request provides for attainment and maintenance of the PM-10 National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and satisfies the applicable PM-
10 requirements of the Act.
    Lafarge receives, transfers, stores, and ships cementitious
products. The PM-10 emission sources contained in the SIP for Lafarge
include a Barge Aeration Unit, the Vacuum Pump Exhaust and the Silo
Storage System. The barge-to-silo operations and related equipment have
been removed since the issuance of

the original Administrative Order. Six storage silos remain in
operation at Childs Road Terminal for storing cementitious material,
with delivery and transport of the material by truck.
    Proposed changes to Childs Road Terminal include the installation
of a new rail siding for rail delivery of material to the silos, the
installation of a related railcar-to-silo pneumatic conveyance, the
redesign of the pneumatic conveyance system to allow dedicated use of
Silos Nos. 1 and 2, and the installation of new pollution control
devices (a low temperature fabric filter) on each of the two dedicated
silos. Operation of the remaining Silos Nos. 3-6, also equipped with a
fabric filter, remain unchanged with truck unloading.
    The original air quality dispersion modeling for the SIP and the
initial Administrative Order were based on Lafarge's 1995 annual
throughput of material of 120,000 tons per year (tpy). The 2004 annual
throughput was 11,280 tons with a 2005 reported annual throughput of
24,454 tons. Annual throughput is expected to increase to 26,600 tpy in
2009 after installation of the proposed changes. Revised air dispersion
modeling was conducted using the AERMOD model to ensure continued
attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS in the area. Based on the modeling
results, the FESOP limits Lafarge to a maximum daily throughput of
1,100 tons per day using a 24-hour rolling average and an annual
throughput of 100,000 tpy, using a 12-month rolling average. The
modeling analysis also included PM-10 emissions from the nearby
Metropolitan Council Environmental Services wastewater treatment plant,
in combination with a conservative background concentration, and
predicted a 24-hour concentration of 146.2 micrograms per cubic meter
([mu]g/m3) and an annual concentration of 41.3 [mu]g/
m3, therefore demonstrating attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS.

3. What Is a ``Title I Condition?''

    SIP control measures were contained in permits issued to culpable
sources in Minnesota until 1990 when EPA determined that limits in
state-issued permits are not federally enforceable because the permits
expire. The state then issued permanent Administrative Orders to
culpable sources in nonattainment areas from 1991 to February of 1996.
    Minnesota's consolidated permitting regulations, approved into the
state SIP on May 2, 1995 (60 FR 21447), includes the term ``Title I
condition'' which was written, in part, to satisfy EPA requirements
that SIP control measures remain permanent. A ``Title I condition'' is
defined as ``any condition based on source-specific determination of
ambient impacts imposed for the purposes of achieving or maintaining
attainment with the national ambient air quality standard and which was
part of the state implementation plan approved by EPA or submitted to
the EPA pending approval under section 110 of the act * * *.'' The rule
also states that ``Title I conditions and the permittee's obligation to
comply with them, shall not expire, regardless of the expiration of the
other conditions of the permit.'' Further, ``any title I condition
shall remain in effect without regard to permit expiration or
reissuance, and shall be restated in the reissued permit.''
    Minnesota has also initiated using joint Title I/Title V-FESOP
documents as the enforceable document for imposing emission limitations
and compliance requirements in SIPs. The SIP requirements in joint
Title I/Title V-FESOP documents submitted by MPCA are cited as ``Title
I conditions,'' therefore ensuring that SIP requirements remain
permanent and enforceable. EPA reviewed the state's procedure for using
joint Title I/Title V-FESOP documents to implement site-specific SIP
requirements and found it to be acceptable under both titles I and V of
the Act (July 3, 1997 letter from David Kee, EPA, to Michael J.
Sandusky, MPCA). Further, a June 15, 2006, letter from EPA to MPCA
clarifies procedures to transfer requirements from Administrative
Orders to joint Title I/Title V-FESOP documents.

II. What Action Is EPA Taking?

    EPA is approving into the Minnesota PM-10 SIP a joint Title I/FESOP
document which contains certain portions of Minnesota Air Emission
Permit No. 12300391-002, issued to Lafarge North America--Childs Road
Terminal on November 17, 2006. Specifically, EPA is only approving into
the SIP those portions of the joint Title I/FESOP document cited as
``Title I condition: SIP for PM-10 NAAQS.'' In addition, EPA is
withdrawing from the Minnesota PM-10 SIP the November 30, 1992,
Administrative Order and the December 21, 1994, and September 23, 1997,
revisions to the Administrative Order for Lafarge Childs Road Terminal.
    We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we
view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse
comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal
Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will
serve as the proposal to approve the state plan if relevant adverse
written comments are filed. This rule will be effective November 13,
2007 without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse written
comments by October 11, 2007. If we receive such comments, we will
withdraw this action before the effective date by publishing a
subsequent document that will withdraw the final action. All public
comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule
based on the proposed action. The EPA will not institute a second
comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action
should do so at this time. If we do not receive any comments, this
action will be effective November 13, 2007.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64
FR 43255,

August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing
a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the
distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air
Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule
implementing a Federal standard.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not
impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by November 13, 2007. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Dated: August 29, 2007.
Bharat Mathur,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

0
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart Y--Minnesota

0
2. In Sec.  52.1220 the table in paragraph (d) is amended by revising
the entry for ``Lafarge Corp., Childs Road facility'' to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.1220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *

                                 EPA-Approved Minnesota Source-Specific Permits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         State
          Name of Source              Permit No.    effective date    EPA approval  date          Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Lafarge North America Corporation,    12300391-002        11/17/07  9/11/07 [Insert page   Only conditions cited
 Childs Road Terminal.                                               number where the       as ``Title I
                                                                     document begins].      condition: SIP for
                                                                                PM-10 NAAQS.''

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 07-4380 Filed 9-10-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 73 (Tuesday, April 16, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 22540]
[FR Doc No: 2013-08819]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. NJ13-9-000]

Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration; Notice of
Petition for Declaratory Order

    Take notice that on April 5, 2013, pursuant to sections 35.28(e)
and 385.207 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission)
Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 35.28(e) and 18 CFR 385.207,
the Bonneville Power Administration (Bonneville), submitted certain
amendments to its Open Access Transmission Tariff (tariff) and a
Petition for Declaratory Order requesting the Commission find that
Bonneville's tariff, as amended by this filing, substantially conforms
or is superior to the Commission's pro forma tariff and that Bonneville
satisfies the requirements for reciprocity status.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on May 6, 2013.

    Dated: April 9, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-08819 Filed 4-15-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 209 (Tuesday, October 29, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57943-57944]
[FR Doc No: 2019-23590]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2019-0080]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    Under part 211 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this
document provides the public notice that on September 18, 2019, the
American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association (ASLRRA), on
behalf of its members, petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA) for a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal
hours of service laws contained at 49 U.S.C. 21103(a)(4)(A), which, in
part, require a train employee to receive 48 hours off duty after
initiating an on-duty period for six consecutive days. FRA assigned the
petition Docket Number FRA-2019-0080.
    Specifically, ASLRRA seeks a comprehensive waiver of relief from
(1) the statutory rest requirements contained in 49 U.S.C.
21103(a)(4)(A); and (2) approval of a pilot project to demonstrate the
safety of adopting fatigue mitigation plans on Class II and Class III
railroads in lieu of strict compliance with the requirements of these
statutory provisions.
    ASLRRA's existing waiver of 49 U.S.C. 21103(a)(4)(A), granted under
the terms and conditions contained in FRA's initial March 5, 2010
decision letter, and extended by FRA's decision letter dated February
27, 2012, permits participating railroads to allow train employees to
work six consecutive days followed by 24 hours of rest before returning
to work. See Docket Number FRA-2009-0078. One condition of the waiver
excludes work occurring between the hours of midnight and six a.m.
ASLRRA requests to expand the waiver to include work between the hours
of midnight and six a.m. for those railroads identified in the
petition. It also seeks approval of a pilot project to validate
preliminary data results suggesting that employing fatigue mitigating
techniques would eliminate any adverse consequences from extending
ASLRRA's existing waiver to those hours. ASLRRA states that employee
participation in the waiver will be voluntary and all employees covered
by the waiver will be provided information about the waiver and pilot.
    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov and in person at the U.S. Department of
Transportation's Docket Operations Facility, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE,
W12-140, Washington, DC 20590. The Docket Operations Facility is open
from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a

hearing. If any interested parties desire an opportunity for oral
comment and a public hearing, they should notify FRA, in writing,
before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their
request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted by any of the following
methods:
     Website: http://www.regulations .gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal Holidays.
    Communications received by December 13, 2019 will be considered by
FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date
will be considered if practicable.
    Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications
and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better
inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including
any personal information the commenter provides, to
www.regulations.gov, as described in the system of records notice (DOT/
ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. See also https://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice for the
privacy notice of regulations.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
John Karl Alexy,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety, Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2019-23590 Filed 10-28-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 165 (Wednesday, August 26, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51855-51858]
[FR Doc No: 2015-21082]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-75745; File No. SR-EDGA-2015-32]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change to Rule
2.11, BATS Trading as Outbound Router

August 20, 2015.
    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 August 11, 2015, EDGA Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``EDGA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange
has designated this proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder,\4\ which renders it effective upon filing with
the Commission. 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).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange filed a proposal to amend Rule 2.11, BATS Trading as
Outbound Router, in order to conform to the rules of BATS Exchange,
Inc. (``BZX'') and BATS Y-Exchange, Inc. (``BYX'').\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See BZX and BYX Rules 2.11. See also Securities Exchange Act
Release Nos. 69744 (June 12, 2015), 78 FR 36612 (June 18, 2015) (SR-
BYX-2013-018); and 69744 (June 12, 2013), 78 FR 36621 (June 18,
2015) (SR-BATS-2013-032) (notices of filing and immediate
effectiveness of proposed rule changes to amend BYX and BZX Rules
2.11, entitled ``BATS Trading, Inc. as Outbound Router'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
Web site at www.batstrading.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 Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    In early 2014, the Exchange and its affiliate, EDGX Exchange, Inc.
(``EDGX''), received approval to effect a merger (the ``Merger'') of
the Exchange's parent company, Direct Edge Holdings LLC, with BATS
Global Markets, Inc., the parent of BZX and BYX (together with EDGA,
and EDGX, the ``BGM Affiliated Exchanges'').\6\ In the context of the
Merger, the BGM Affiliated Exchanges are working to align certain
system and regulatory functionality, retaining only intended
differences between the BGM Affiliated Exchanges. Thus, the proposal
set forth below is intended to amend Rule 2.11, BATS Trading as an
Outbound Router, to make such Rule identical to the corresponding Rule
2.11 on BZX and BYX. The Exchange does not propose to alter its current
system functionality with regard to its use of BATS Trading, Inc.
(``BATS Trading'') as an outbound router and its use of an error
account. Rather, the proposed rule change is designed to provide a
consistent rule set across each of the BGM Affiliated Exchanges.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71449 (January 30,
2014), 79 FR 6961 (February 5, 2014) (SR-EDGX-2013-043; SR-EDGA-
2013-034).
    \7\ See BZX and BYX Rules 2.11. The Exchange notes that EDGX
intends to file a similar proposal that will align the rules related
to its use of BATS Trading as an outbound router across each of the
BGM Affiliated Exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to Exchange Rule 2.11, the Exchange relies on BATS Trading
to provide outbound routing services from itself to a routing
destination. Rule 2.11 also provides the authority to the Exchange or
BATS Trading to cancel orders on the Exchange's equity securities
platform when a technical or system issue occurs. Rule 2.11 also
describes the operation of an error account for BATS Trading. The
Exchange proposes to make the amendments to Rule 2.11 described below
to align each subparagraph with the corresponding subparagraph within
BZX and BYX Rules 2.11.\8\ Again, none of these proposed changes alter
the authority of the Exchange or BATS Trading to cancel orders that
result from a technical or system issue nor do they amend the operation
of an error account for BATS Trading.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The Exchange notes that it does not propose to amend Rules
2.11(a)(1)-(3) and (b) as those subparagraph are identical to BZX
and BYX Rules 2.11(a)(1)-(3) and (b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, the Exchange proposes to make the follow ministerial changes
to Rule 2.11 to conform to BZX and BYX Rules 2.11, none of which amend
the substance or meaning of each section of the rule:
     Add ``, Inc.'' after ``BATS Trading'' in the title of Rule
2.11 to align with the title of BZX and BYX Rules 2.11; and
     Replace the word ``accordance'' with the word
``compliance'' in subparagraph (a)(4) to align with BZX and BYX Rules
2.11(a)(4);

None of the above changes alter the meaning of each subparagraph. They
are simply intended to align each subparagraph with the corresponding
subparagraph within Rule 2.11.
    Second, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 2.11(a)(6) to align
with BZX and BYX Rules 2.11(a)(6). Rule 2.11(a)(6) will continue to
provide that the Exchange or BATS Trading may cancel orders as either
deems to be necessary to maintain fair and orderly markets if a
technical or systems issue occurs at the Exchange, BATS Trading or a
routing destination. The Exchange proposes to replace: (i) The phrase
``if and when a systems, technical or operational issue'' with ``if a
technical or systems issue''; and (ii) the term ``Trading Center'' with
``routing destination.'' Replacement of these terms do not alter the
meaning of Rule 2.11(a)(6). Rather, they simply align the rule's text
with that of BZX and BYX Rules 2.11(a)(6). To further align the rule
text with BZX and BYX Rules 2.11(a)(6), the Exchange proposes to delete
the phrase ``of orders'' from the last sentence of Exchange Rule

2.11(a)(6). Rule 2.11(a)(6) will continue to require that the Exchange
or BATS Trading provide notice of the cancellation of orders to
affected Members as soon as practicable.
    Third, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 2.11(a)(7) to align with
BZX and BYX Rules 2.11(a)(7). Subparagraph (a)(7) currently states the
following:

    BATS Trading shall maintain an error account for the purpose of
liquidating an error position when such position, in the judgment of
the Exchange or BATS Trading subject to the factors described
herein, cannot be fairly and practicably assigned to one or more
Members in its entirety. An error position can be acquired if it
results from a systems, technical or operational issue experienced
by BATS Trading, by the Exchange or by a Trading Center to which
BATS Trading directed an outbound order.

The Exchange proposes to replace subparagraph (a)(7) in its entirety.
As amended subparagraph (a)(7) would define ``Error Positions'' as
``positions that are the result of an execution or executions that are
not clearly erroneous under Rule 11.15 and result from a technical or
systems issue at BATS Trading, the Exchange, a routing destination, or
a non-affiliate third-party Routing Broker that affects one or more
orders.'' Subparagraph (a)(7) would also continue to state that BATS
Trading will maintain an error account for the purpose of addressing
Error Positions. The assignment and liquidation of Error Positions
discussed under current subparagraph (a)(7) will be addressed under the
proposed amendments to subparagraph (a)(7)(D) discussed below.
    Fourth, the Exchange proposes to amend subparagraph (a)(7)(A) to
add the word ``this'' before ``Rule 2.11(a)(7)'' and capitalize
reference to Error Positions to align with BZX and BYX Rules
2.11(a)(7)(A). Notwithstanding these changes, subparagraph (a)(7)(A)
will continue to require that an Error Position not include any
position that results from an order submitted by a Member to the
Exchange that is executed on the Exchange and automatically processed
for clearance and settlement on a locked-in basis.
    Fifth, the Exchange proposes to amend subparagraph (a)(7)(B) to
pluralize references to the term ``position'' to align with BZX and BYX
Rules 2.11(a)(7)(B). Subparagraph (a)(7)(B) shall continue to require
that, except as provided in Rule 2.11(a)(7)(C) (described below), BATS
Trading not (i) accept any positions in its error account from an
account of a Member, or (ii) permit any Member to transfer any
positions from the Member's account to BATS Trading's error account.
    Sixth, the Exchange proposes to amend subparagraph (a)(7)(C) to
replace reference to: (i) A ``systems, technical or operational issue''
with ``technical or systems issue'' and; (ii) ``a Member's trade'' with
``a Member to a trade''. As amended, subparagraph (a)(7)(C) would state
that if a technical or systems issue results in the Exchange not having
valid clearing instructions for a Member to a trade, BATS Trading may
assume that Member's side of the trade so that the trade can be
automatically processed for clearance and settlement on a locked-in
basis. These changes to align subparagraph (a)(7)(C) with BZX and BYX
Rules 2.11(a)(7)(C) and do not alter its meaning or application.
    Lastly, the Exchange proposes to replace subparagraphs (a)(7)(D),
(E), and (F) in their entirety with new subparagraphs (D) and (E), the
text of which are identical to BZX and BYX Rules 2.11(a)(7)(D) and (E).
Subparagraph (D) would state that, in connection with a particular
technical or systems issue, BATS Trading or the Exchange shall either
(1) assign all resulting Error Positions to Members in accordance with
paragraph (i) below, or (2) have all resulting Error Positions
liquidated in accordance with subparagraph (ii) below. This provision
is similar to current subparagraph (a)(7)(D) and (E). Subparagraph (D)
would further require that any determination to assign or liquidate
Error Positions, as well as any resulting assignments, shall be made in
a nondiscriminatory fashion. This provision is substantially similar to
current subparagraphs (a)(7)(F)(ii).
    Proposed subparagraph (a)(7)(D)(i) would govern the assignment of
Error Positions. Specifically, BATS Trading or the Exchange are
required to assign all Error Positions resulting from a particular
technical or systems issue to the Members affected by that technical or
systems issue if BATS Trading or the Exchange: (i) Determines under
proposed subparagraph (a)(7)(D)(i)(1) that it has accurate and
sufficient information (including valid clearing information) to assign
the positions to all of the Members affected by that technical or
systems issue; (ii) determines under proposed subparagraph
(a)(7)(D)(i)(2) that it has sufficient time pursuant to normal
clearance and settlement deadlines to evaluate the information
necessary to assign the positions to all of the Members affected by
that technical or systems issue; and (iii) has not determined under
proposed subparagraph (a)(7)(D)(i)(3) to cancel all orders affected by
that technical or systems issue in accordance with subparagraph (a)(6)
discussed above. These provisions are similar to current subparagraphs
(a)(7)(D)(i) and (ii) as well as current subparagraphs (a)(7)(F) and
(F)(i).
    Proposed subparagraph (a)(7)(D)(ii) would govern the liquidation of
Error Positions. Under proposed subparagraph (a)(7)(D)(ii) BATS Trading
must liquidate any Error Positions as soon as practicable where it or
the Exchange is unable to assign all Error Positions resulting from a
particular technical or systems issue to all of the affected Members in
accordance with subparagraph (D) discussed above, or if BATS Trading or
the Exchange determines to cancel all orders affected by the technical
or systems issue in accordance with subparagraph (a)(6) above. This
provision is substantially similar to current subparagraphs (a)(7)(E).
    In liquidating such Error Positions, proposed subparagraph
(a)(7)(D)(ii)(1) and (2) require BATS Trading to: (i) Provide complete
time and price discretion for the trading to liquidate the Error
Positions to a third-party broker-dealer and shall not attempt to
exercise any influence or control over the timing or methods of such
trading; and (ii) establish and enforce policies and procedures that
are reasonably designed to restrict the flow of confidential and
proprietary information between the third-party broker-dealer and BATS
Trading/the Exchange associated with the liquidation of the Error
Positions. These provisions are similar to current subparagraphs
(a)(7)(E)(i) and (ii).
    Proposed subparagraph (a)(7)(E) would require BATS Trading and the
Exchange to make and keep records to document all determinations to
treat positions as Error Positions and all determinations for the
assignment of Error Positions to Members or the liquidation of Error
Positions, as well as records associated with the liquidation of Error
Positions through the third-party broker-dealer. This provision is
substantially similar to current subparagraphs (a)(7)(F)(ii).
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and,
in particular, with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\9\
Specifically, the proposed change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of
the

Act,\10\ because it is designed to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to remove impediments to, and perfect the
mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The Exchange
does not propose to alter its current system functionality with regard
the treatment of Error Positions set forth under current Exchange
Rules. Rather, the proposed rule change is designed to provide a
consistent rule set across each of the BGM Affiliated Exchanges. As
mentioned above, the proposed rule changes, combined with the planned
filing for EDGX,\11\ would allow the BGM Affiliated Exchanges to
provide a consistent set of rules as it relates to the treatment of
Error Positions across each of the BGM Affiliated Exchanges. Consistent
rules, in turn, will simplify the regulatory requirements for Members
of the Exchange that are also participants on EDGX, BZX and/or BYX. The
proposed rule change would provide greater harmonization between rules
of similar purpose on the BGM Affiliated Exchanges, resulting in
greater uniformity and less burdensome and more efficient regulatory
compliance and understanding of Exchange Rules. As such, the proposed
rule change would foster cooperation and coordination with persons
engaged in facilitating transactions in securities and would remove
impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and
a national market system. Similarly, the Exchange also believes that,
by harmonizing the rules and across each BGM Affiliated Exchange with
respect to the treatment of Error Positions, the proposal will provide
consistent rules and methodology for handling Error Positions across
the BGM Affiliated Exchanges, meaning that the proposed rule change is
equitable and will promote fairness in the market place.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \11\ See supra note 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(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 not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the act. To the contrary, allowing the
Exchange to implement substantively identical rules across each of the
BGM Affiliated Exchanges regarding the treatment of Error Positions
does not present any competitive issues, but rather is designed to
provide greater harmonization among Exchange, EDGX, BYX, and BZX rules
of similar purpose.

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

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

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

    The Exchange has designated this rule filing as non-controversial
under Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \12\ and paragraph (f)(6) of Rule
19b-4 thereunder.\13\ The proposed rule change effects a change that:
(A) Does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the
public interest; (B) does not impose any significant burden on
competition; and (C) by its terms, does not become operative for 30
days after the date of the filing, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors
and the public interest; provided that the self-regulatory organization
has given the Commission written notice of its intent to file the
proposed rule change, along with a brief description and text of the
proposed rule change, at least five business days prior to the date of
filing of the proposed rule change, or such shorter time as designated
by the Commission.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \14\ The Exchange has fulfilled this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \15\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b4(f)(6)(iii),\16\ the Commission
may designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange has asked
the Commission to waive the 30-day operative delay so that the proposal
may become operative immediately upon filing. The Exchange believes
that waiver of the 30-day operative delay would benefit investors
because it will allow the Exchange to have consistent rules across each
of the BGM Affiliated Exchanges regarding the treatment of Error
Positions. The Exchange also notes that the proposed rule change does
not alter its current system functionality with regard to the treatment
of Error Positions set forth under current Exchange Rules. The
Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest as
it will harmonize the treatment of Error Positions across the BGM
Affiliated Exchanges. Therefore, the Commission hereby waives the 30-
day operative delay and designates the proposed rule change to be
operative upon filing with the Commission.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \17\ For purposes only of waiving the operative date of this
proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact
on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 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: (1)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (2) for the protection
of investors; or (3) 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 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 proposal is
consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the
following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-EDGA-2015-32 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 No. SR-EDGA-2015-32. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the

provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing will also be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File No. SR-EDGA-2015-32 and should be
submitted on or before September 16, 2015.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-21082 Filed 8-25-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 111 (Friday, June 8, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 26566-26568]
[FR Doc No: 2018-12295]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0082; Airspace Docket No. 16-AWP-22]
RIN 2120-AA66

Establishment of Class E Airspace; Pago Pago, American Samoa

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action establishes Class E airspace extending upward from
700 feet above the surface at Pago Pago International Airport, Pago
Pago, American Samoa (AS), to accommodate new area navigation (RNAV)
procedures at the airport. This action is necessary for the safety and
management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations within the
National Airspace System.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, September 13, 2018. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
Title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to
https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is

published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth Ready, Airspace Policy Group,
Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above
the earth at Pago Pago International Airport, Pago Pago, American
Samoa, to support IFR operations at the airport.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the
Federal Register for Docket No. FAA-2018-0082 (83 FR 12289; March 21,
2018). The NPRM proposed to establish Class E airspace extending upward
from 700 feet above the surface at Pago Pago International Airport,
Pago Pago, American Samoa. Interested parties were invited to
participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on
the proposal to the FAA. One comment was received, supporting the
proposal.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.11B, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15,
2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designation listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15,
2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11B lists Class A,
B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    The FAA is amending Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface at Pago Pago International Airport, Pago Pago, AS.
This airspace is necessary to accommodate the redesign for IFR
operations in standard instrument approach and departure procedures at
the airport. Class E airspace is established within a 7-mile radius of
Pago Pago International Airport and within 4 miles either side of the
071[deg] bearing extending from the 7-mile radius to 10.6 miles
northeast, and within 4 miles either side of the 240[deg] bearing
extending from the 7-mile radius to 10.4 miles southwest; and that
airspace extending upward from 1,200 feet above the surface within a
20-mile radius of Pago Pago International Airport, excluding that
airspace extending beyond 12 miles of the shoreline.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action of establishing Class E
airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Pago Pago
International Airport, Pago Pago, American Samoa (AS) to accommodate
new area navigation (RNAV) procedures at the airport qualifies for
categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act and
its implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 1500, and in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,
Paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically excludes from further
environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify
classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points (see
14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas;
Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points). As such, this action
is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental
impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding
Extraordinary Circumstances, the FAA has reviewed this action for
factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded
action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further
analysis. The FAA has determined that no extraordinary circumstances
exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment or
environmental impact study.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11B,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and
effective September 15, 2017, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

AWP AS E5 Pago Pago, AS [New]

Pago Pago International Airport, American Samoa
    (Lat. 14[deg]19'54'' N, Long. 170[deg]42'41'' W)
    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 7-mile radius of Pago Pago International Airport, and
within 4 miles either side of the 071[deg] bearing of the Pago Pago
International Airport extending from the 7-mile radius to 10.6 miles
northeast of the airport, and within 4 miles either side of the
240[deg] bearing of the airport, and extending from 7-miles radius
to 10.4 miles southwest of the Pago Pago

International Airport; and that airspace extending upward from 1,200
feet above the surface within a 20-mile radius of Pago Pago
International Airport, excluding that airspace extending beyond 12
miles of the shoreline.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 30, 2018.
Rodger A. Dean Jr.,
Manager, Airspace Policy Group.
[FR Doc. 2018-12295 Filed 6-7-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: November 22, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 224)]
[Notices]
[Page 70608-70609]
[DOCID:fr22no05-68]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2105-089 California]

Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Notice of Availability of the
Final Environmental Impacts Statement for the Upper North Fork Feather
River Project

November 10, 2005.
    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission)
regulations, 18 CFR part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office
of Energy Projects has reviewed the application for license for the
Upper North Fork

Feather River Project (FERC No. 2105), located on the North Fork
Feather River and Butt Creek, in Plumas County, California and has
prepared a Final Environmental Impact Statement (final EIS) for the
project.
    The final EIS contains staff evaluations of the applicant's
proposal and the alternatives for relicensing the Upper North Fork
Feather River Project. The final EIS documents the views of
governmental agencies, non-governmental organizations, affected Indian
tribes, the public, the license applicant, and Commission staff.
    The final EIS also contains an analysis of Section 18 fishway
prescriptions and section 10(j) recommendations that were filed by NOAA
Fisheries on March 14, 2005, after issuance of the draft EIS. In
addition, the final EIS contains an analysis of potential measures for
providing colder water to the Upper North Fork Feather River during the
summer. Because these analyses first appear in the final EIS, you are
specifically invited to file comments on these three items in this
document. Any comments, conclusions, or recommendations that draw upon
studies, reports, or other working papers should be supported by
appropriate documentation. Your comments will be considered in the
Commission's order in this proceeding.
    Comments should be filed with Magalie R. Salas, Secretary, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426. All comments must be filed by December 19, 2005, and should
reference Project No. 2105-089. Comments may be filed electronically
via the Internet in lieu of paper. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and instructions on
the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov under the eLibrary

link.
    Before the Commission makes a licensing decision, it will take into
account all concerns relevant to the public interest. The final EIS
will be part of the record from which the Commission will make its
decision.
    Copies of the final EIS are available for review in the
Commission's Public Reference Branch, Room 2A, located at 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. The final EIS also may be viewed on
the Internet at http://www.ferc.gov under the eLibrary link. Please

call<PHONE_NUMBER> for assistance.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp
 to be notified via e-mail of new filings and

issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
contact FERC Online Support.
    For further information, contact John Mudre at<PHONE_NUMBER> or at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-6425 Filed 11-21-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 219 (Wednesday, November 15, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78358-78359]
[FR Doc No: 2023-25126]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OA-2013-0320; FRL-11531-01-OA]

Public Comment on the Revised Technical Guidance for Assessing
Environmental Justice in Regulatory Analysis

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of public comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing a 60-
day public comment period on the draft revision of the Technical
Guidance for Assessing Environmental Justice in Regulatory Analysis (EJ
Technical Guidance). The EJ Technical Guidance was first published in
2016. The EPA is updating it to reflect the state of the science; new
peer-reviewed agency guidance; and new terminology, priorities, and
direction, including Executive Order 14096. The purpose of this
guidance is to outline analytic expectations and discuss technical
approaches and methods that can be used by agency analysts to evaluate
EJ concerns for regulatory actions. This technical guidance builds on
the EPA's experience in evaluating environmental

justice concerns within the rulemaking analytic process and underscores
the EPA's ongoing commitment to ensuring the just treatment and
meaningful involvement of all people with respect to the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 15, 2024.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OA-2013-0320, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov/
(our preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket
Center, Office of Policy, Docket, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: EPA Docket Center, WJC West
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004.
The Docket Center's hours of operations are 8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m.,
Monday-Friday (except Federal Holidays).
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID
No. for this rulemaking. Comments received may be posted without change
to https://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal information
provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the ``Public Participation''
heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Ann Wolverton, National Center for
Environmental Economics, Office of Policy (Mail Code 1809A),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation.

A. Informational Webinars

    The EPA will host two informational webinars on the draft revised
technical guidance.
     Wednesday, December 6, 2:30-4:00 p.m. EST: To join the
live event, see the weblink at: https://www.epa.gov/environmental-economics/epa-draft-revision-technical-guidance-assessing-environmental-justice.
    To join by phone: +1<PHONE_NUMBER>, Conference ID: 197 258 337#.
     Tuesday, December 12, 3:00-4:30 p.m. EST: To join the live
event, see the weblink at: https://www.epa.gov/environmental-economics/epa-draft-revision-technical-guidance-assessing-environmental-justice.
    To join by phone: +1<PHONE_NUMBER>, Conference ID: 398 827 52#.

B. Written Comments

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OA-2013-
0320, at https://www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), or the
other methods identified in the ADDRESSES section. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from the docket. The EPA may
publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit to
EPA's docket at https://www.regulations.gov any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), Proprietary
Business Information (PBI), or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must
be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered
the official comment and should include discussion of all points you
wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web,
cloud, or other file sharing system). Please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets for additional submission methods; the
full EPA public comment policy; information about CBI, PBI, or
multimedia submissions; and general guidance on making effective
comments.

II. General Information

A. Where can I find the document?

    The draft revision of the Technical Guidance for Assessing
Environmental Justice in Regulatory Analysis is available at https://www.epa.gov/environmental-economics/epa-draft-revision-technical-guidance-assessing-environmental-justice.

B. What is the purpose of the document?

    The Technical Guidance for Assessing Environmental Justice in
Regulatory Analysis (Guidance) addresses the issue of how to
analytically consider environmental justice in regulatory analyses. It
directs EPA analysts to assess whether environmental justice concerns
exist prior to the rulemaking and whether such concerns are likely to
be exacerbated or mitigated for each regulatory option under
consideration. The technical guidance makes recommendations designed to
ensure greater consistency across EPA assessments of EJ concerns for
regulatory actions. The recommendations encourage analysts to conduct
the highest quality analysis feasible, recognizing that data
limitations, time and resource constraints, and analytic challenges
will vary by media and circumstance. They are not designed to be
prescriptive and do not mandate the use of a specific approach. Updates
to the technical guidance reflect advancements in the state of the
science; other new peer-reviewed Agency guidance documents; and new
priorities and direction related to the conduct of environmental
justice analysis, including Executive Order 14096. The technical
guidance builds on the EPA's experience in evaluating environmental
justice as part of the rulemaking analytic process and underscores the
EPA's ongoing commitment to ensuring the just treatment and meaningful
involvement of all people with respect to the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies. The technical guidance will enable the EPA to conduct better
analysis of regulations which will ultimately enable the EPA to make
better decisions.

C. How will my comments be used?

    Public comment received on the draft revision of the Technical
Guidance for Assessing Environmental Justice in Regulatory Analysis
will be reviewed and considered for incorporation into or modification
of text in the final revised draft of the Guidance. The final draft
Guidance will then undergo internal EPA review and revision, and then
be finalized for publication following peer review by the EPA's Science
Advisory Board. An EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) review of this
document will be announced in December 2023. Information on the SAB
review can be found here: https://sab.epa.gov/ords/sab/r/sab_apex/sab/home.

Victoria Arroyo,
Associate Administrator, Office of Policy.
[FR Doc. 2023-25126 Filed 11-14-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 230 (Wednesday, November 30, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 74014-74017]
[FR Doc No: 2011-30844]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2010-0671; FRL-9498-5]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Illinois;
Volatile Organic Compound Emission Control Measures for Chicago and
Metro-East St. Louis Ozone Nonattainment Areas

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: On July 29, 2010, September 16, 2011, and September 29, 2011,
the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) submitted several
volatile organic compound (VOC) rules for approval into its State
Implementation Plan (SIP). The purpose of these rules is to satisfy the
Clean Air Act's (the Act) requirement that States revise their SIPs to
include reasonably available control technology (RACT) for sources of
VOC emissions in moderate ozone nonattainment areas. Illinois' VOC
rules provide RACT requirements for the Chicago and Metro-East St.
Louis 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas. These rules are approvable
because they are consistent with the Control Technique Guideline (CTG)
documents issued by EPA in 2006, 2007, and 2008 and satisfy the RACT
requirements of the Act.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 30, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2010-0671, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Douglas Aburano, Chief, Attainment Planning and
Maintenance Section (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
     Hand Delivery: Douglas Aburano, Chief, Attainment Planning
and Maintenance Section (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
77 West Jackson Boulevard, 18th floor, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours
of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal
holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2010-0671. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov or email. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without
going through http://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 instructions on submitting
comments, go to Section I of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
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 http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal
holidays. We recommend that you telephone Steven Rosenthal at (312)
886-6052 before visiting the Region 5 office.

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

I. What should I consider as i prepare my comments for EPA?
II. What action is EPA taking today?
III. What is the purpose of this action?
IV. What is EPA's analysis of Illinois' submitted VOC rules?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

    When submitting comments, remember to:
    1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date, and page number).
    2. Follow directions--EPA may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
    7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.

II. What action is EPA taking today?

    EPA is proposing to approve into the Illinois SIP several new VOC
rules at 35 Illinois Adm. Code 211, 218, and 219, which set out RACT
requirements for categories of VOC sources in two ozone nonattainment
areas. These rules correspond to and are consistent with the source
categories and control recommendations in the CTGs issued by EPA in
2006, 2007, and 2008. Illinois adopted new rules for industrial
cleaning solvents, flat wood paneling coatings, flexible packaging
printing materials, lithographic printing materials, letterpress
printing materials,

paper, film and foil coatings, metal furniture coatings, large
appliance coatings, miscellaneous metals and plastic parts coatings,
auto and light-duty truck coatings, miscellaneous industrial adhesives,
and fiberglass boat manufacturing materials. Illinois also adopted
several other related revisions, which were mostly corrections to
improve the effectiveness of its existing VOC rules.

III. What is the purpose of this action?

    The primary purpose of these rules is to satisfy the requirement in
section 182(b) of the Act that VOC RACT rules be adopted for
nonattainment areas for the source categories covered by the CTG
documents issued by EPA in 2006, 2007, and 2008. The Chicago and Metro-
East St. Louis areas are classified as moderate nonattainment for the
8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard. See 40 CFR 81.314.
    Section 182(b)(2) of the Act requires that for areas classified as
moderate or above for ozone nonattainment States must revise their SIPs
to adopt RACT requirements for VOC sources that are covered by CTGs.
RACT is defined as the lowest emissions limitation that a particular
source is capable of meeting by the application of control technology
that is reasonably available considering technological and economic
feasibility (44 FR 53762, September 17, 1979). A CTG provides
information on determining RACT for a source category including
recommendations on control options and enforcement provisions for the
category.

IV. What is EPA's analysis of Illinois' submitted VOC rules?

    As discussed previously, EPA issued new CTGs in 2006, 2007, and
2008. EPA has reviewed Illinois' new VOC rules for the source
categories covered by these CTGs, and proposes to find that these rules
are consistent with the control measures, definitions, recordkeeping
and test methods in these CTGs and applicable EPA RACT guidance at
http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ozone/ozonetech/#ref. Therefore EPA is
proposing to approve these rules as meeting the RACT requirements in
the Act. The definitions in 35 Illinois Adm. Code Part 211 apply to
both the Chicago and Metro-East St. Louis 8-hour ozone nonattainment
areas. 35 Illinois Adm. Code Part 218 contains the volatile organic
material (VOM), which is the same as VOC, emission standards and
limitations for specified categories of VOM sources in the Chicago Area
and Part 219 contains the VOM emission standards and limitations for
the same categories of VOM sources in the Metro-East St. Louis Area.
The General Provisions for Parts 218 and 219 include test methods and
procedures to ensure enforceability of the VOM limits. A brief
discussion of these rules follows.

(1) Section 211--Definitions

    Revisions to this section primarily consist of new definitions that
are needed to support the new and revised rules. These definitions are
consistent with EPA RACT guidance and are approvable.

(2) Sections 218.187 and 219.187--Other Industrial Solvent Cleaning
Operations

    These new regulations are based on EPA's 2006 CTG for Industrial
Cleaning Solvents. The requirements of these sections apply to all
cleaning operations that emit 500 pounds of VOM per month. This section
contains VOM content limits for cleaning solutions, depending upon the
type of cleaning being performed. Compliance can also be achieved by
using a cleaning solution that does not exceed 8.00 millimeters of
mercury (mmHg) or by use of add-on control (i.e., an afterburner or
carbon adsorber) that achieves 85 percent control. Work practices (e.g.
cover open containers) are also required to further reduce emissions.
Recordkeeping requirements are also included to establish applicability
and whether subject sources are in compliance.

(3) Sections 218.204-218.219 and 218.204-218.219--Coating Operations

    Illinois' surface coating regulations being proposed for approval
include requirements for applicability, emissions limits, control
techniques, and work practices. These regulations are based on the
relevant 2006, 2007, and 2008 CTGs. For example, based upon the
applicability cutoffs for the surface coating rules, which are
contained in sections 218.208 and 219.208, the various surface coating
emission limits apply to sources with emissions of VOMs (resulting from
the application of surface coatings) equal to or greater than 15 pounds
(6.8 kilograms) per day, or an equivalent level of 2.7 tons per 12
month rolling period.
    The categories of Illinois' surface coating regulations being
proposed for approval in this action are identified below.
    Flat Wood Paneling--These regulations have been revised based on
EPA's 2006 CTG for Flat Wood Paneling Coatings. Illinois' VOM content
limits are 2.1 pounds VOM/gallon of coating or 2.9 pounds VOM/gallon of
solids, which are consistent with the CTG. When compliance is achieved
by the use of add-on control, the required overall control efficiency
of 90 percent is also consistent with the CTG.
    Large Appliance Coatings--These regulations have been revised based
on EPA's 2007 CTG for Large Appliance Coatings. Emission limits, e.g.
2.3 pounds VOM/gallon for general, one component coatings, are
consistent with the CTG. When compliance is achieved by the use of add-
on control, the required overall control efficiency of 90 percent is
also consistent with the CTG.
    Metal Furniture Coatings--These regulations have been revised based
on EPA's 2007 CTG for Metal Furniture Coatings. Emission limits, e.g.
2.3 pounds VOM/gallon for general, one component coatings, are
consistent with the CTG. When compliance is achieved by the use of add-
on control, the required overall control efficiency of 90 percent is
also consistent with the CTG.
    Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings--These regulations have been revised
based on EPA's 2007 CTG for Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings. Illinois'
VOM content limits are 0.20 pounds VOM/pound of solids applied for
pressure sensitive tape and label surface coatings, and 0.40 pounds
VOM/pound solids applied for all other paper coatings, which are
consistent with the CTG. When compliance is achieved by the use of add-
on control, the required overall control efficiency of 90 percent is
also consistent with the CTG.
    Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings--These regulations
have been revised based on EPA's 2008 CTG for Miscellaneous Metal
Products Coatings and Plastic Parts Coatings. Emission limits, e.g. 2.3
pounds VOM/gallon for general, one component coatings, are consistent
with the CTG. When compliance is achieved by the use of add-on control,
the required overall control efficiency of 90 percent is also
consistent with the CTG.
    Automobile and Light-duty Truck Assembly Coatings--These
regulations have been revised based on EPA's 2008 CTG for Auto and
Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings. Emission limits, e.g. 1.44 pounds
VOM/gallon coating solids deposited for topcoat operations, are
consistent with the CTG. As specified in the CTG, compliance with these
limits is based on EPA's ``Protocol for Determining the Daily VOC
Emission Rate of Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Primer-Surfacer and
Topcoat Operations.'' This testing protocol considers the VOM content
limit, the transfer efficiency and the efficiency of add-on control to
establish compliance with the applicable emission limit.

(4) Graphic Arts

    Illinois' graphic arts regulations being proposed for approval in
this action include applicability and control requirements, and are
based on the relevant 2006 CTGs. The categories of Illinois graphic
arts regulations being proposed for approval in this action are
identified below.

Sections 218.401-404 and 219.401-404--Flexible Package Printing

    These regulations have been revised based on EPA's 2006 CTG for
Flexible Packaging Printing Materials. Subject printing lines may
comply by meeting limits of 0.8 pounds VOM per pound of solids applied
or 0.16 pounds VOM per pound of ink and coatings applied.
    Alternatively, compliance can be achieved by the use of add-on
control achieving an overall reduction in VOM emissions ranging from 65
percent to 80 percent, depending upon when the printing line and
control device were constructed. Work practices to reduce emissions
from the use of VOM containing cleaning materials are also required.
Recordkeeping requirements are also specified to establish
applicability and compliance with the applicable limits.

Sections 218.405-411 and 219.405-411--Lithographic Printing

    These regulations are based on EPA's 2006 CTG for Lithographic
Printing. The control requirements for cleaning materials and fountain
solutions apply if the combined emissions of VOM exceed 15 pounds per
day. The add-on control requirements for heatset web offset printing
operations apply if the combined emissions of VOM from all lithographic
printing lines at the source ever exceed 100 pounds per day. The
fountain solution is subject to a percent VOM limit, based upon the
temperature and whether or not the fountain solution contains alcohol.
The cleaning materials must not exceed 70 percent by weight VOM or the
VOM composite partial pressure must be less than 10 mmHg. An add-on
control device on a subject heatset dryer must achieve a 90 percent or
95 percent reduction of VOM emissions, depending on the installation
date of the add-on control device, or alternatively can comply by not
exceeding an outlet concentration of 20 parts per million by volume
(ppmv), as carbon. Recordkeeping requirements are also specified to
establish applicability and compliance with the applicable limits.

Sections 218.412-417 and 219.412-417--Letterpress Printing

    These regulations are based on EPA's 2006 CTG for Letterpress
Printing. The control requirements for cleaning materials apply if the
combined emissions of VOM exceed 15 pounds per day. The add-on control
requirements for heatset web letterpress printing operations apply if
the combined emissions of VOM from all heatset web letterpress printing
lines have a total potential to emit 25 tons or more of VOM per year.
The cleaning materials must not exceed 70 percent by weight VOM or the
VOM composite partial pressure must be less than 10 mmHg. An add-on
control device on a subject heatset dryer must achieve a 90 percent or
95 percent reduction of VOM emissions, depending on the installation
date of the add-on control device, or alternatively can comply by not
exceeding an outlet concentration of 20 ppmv, as carbon. Recordkeeping
requirements are also specified to establish applicability and
compliance with the applicable limits.

(5) Sections 218.900-218.904 and 218.900-904--Miscellaneous Industrial
Adhesives

    These new regulations are based on EPA's 2008 CTG for Miscellaneous
Industrial Adhesive Application Operations. The control requirements
for miscellaneous industrial adhesive application operations apply if
the combined emissions of VOM from all such operations equal or exceed
15 pounds per day. Subject adhesive application operations must either
meet the specific VOM content limitations, depending upon the substrate
being bonded (e.g. 0.3 pounds VOM per gallon of adhesive for bonding
metal) or use an add-on control system that achieves an overall VOM
reduction of at least 85 percent. Specific adhesive application methods
(e.g. electrostatic spray) and work practices are also required to
reduce emissions. Recordkeeping requirements are also specified to
establish applicability and compliance with the applicable limits.

(6) Sections 218.890-218.904 and 219.890-904--Fiberglass Boat
Manufacturing Materials

    These new regulations are based on EPA's 2008 CTG for Fiberglass
Boat Manufacturing Materials. The control requirements for fiberglass
boat manufacturing operations apply if the combined emissions of VOM
from all such operations equal or exceed 15 pounds per day. This rule
covers open molding and gel coat operations, resin and gel coat mixing
operations, and resin and gel coat application equipment cleaning
operations. Emission limits are consistent with the CTG, as are VOC
content and vapor pressure limits applicable to cleaning activities in
fiberglass boat manufacturing.
    Subject facilities can comply by using specified monomer VOM
content limits (e.g. production resin applied via atomized spray would
need to comply with a weighted average monomer VOM content limit of 28
percent by weight) and a non-monomer VOM content limit of 5 percent. An
emission averaging option is also available.
    The VOM containing cleaning solutions for routine cleaning of
application equipment must either be no more than 5 percent VOM, by
weight, or the composite vapor pressure must be no more than 0.50 mmHg.
Also, mixing containers that are 55 gallons, or greater, must be
covered. Recordkeeping requirements are also specified to establish
applicability and compliance with the applicable limits.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the Act. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: November 17, 2011.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2011-30844 Filed 11-29-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P