[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 12 (Wednesday, January 19, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3178-3180]
[FR Doc No: 2011-1020]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2011-0010]

Fire Protection in Shipyard Employment Standard; Extension of the
Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information
Collection (Paperwork) Requirements

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Request for public comments.

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

SUMMARY: OSHA solicits public comments concerning its proposal to
extend OMB approval of the information collection requirements
specified in its Fire Protection in Shipyard Employment Standard (29
CFR 1915.501-1915.509).

DATES: Comments must be submitted (postmarked, sent, or received) by
March 21, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Electronically: You may submit comments and attachments
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal. Follow the instructions online for submitting
comments.
    Facsimile: If your comments, including attachments, are not longer
than 10 pages, you may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-
1648.

    Mail, hand delivery, express mail, messenger, or courier service:
When using this method, you must submit a copy of your comments and
attachments to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. OSHA-2011-0010, U.S.
Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration,
Room N-2625, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210.
Deliveries (hand, express mail, messenger, and courier service) are
accepted during the Department of Labor's and Docket Office's normal
business hours, 8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., e.t.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and OSHA
docket number for the Information Collection Request (ICR) (OSHA-2011-
0010). All comments, including any personal information you provide,
are placed in the public docket without change and may be made
available online at http://www.regulations.gov. For further information
on submitting comments, see the ``Public Participation'' heading in the
section of this notice, titled SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION.
    Docket: To read or download comments or other material in the
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the OSHA Docket Office at
the address above. All documents in the docket (including this Federal
Register notice) are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index;
however, some information (e.g., copyrighted material) is not publicly
available to read or download through the Web site. All submissions,
including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and
copying at the OSHA Docket Office. You may also contact Theda Kenney at
the address below to obtain a copy of the ICR.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Theda Kenney, Directorate of Standards
and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3609, 200
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-
2222.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce
paperwork and respondent (i.e., employer) burden, conducts a
preclearance consultation program to provide the public with an
opportunity to comment on proposed and continuing information
collection requirements in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This program ensures that
information is in the desired format, reporting burden (time and costs)
is minimal, collection instruments are clearly understood, and OSHA's
estimate of the information collection burden is accurate. The
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (the OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 651
et seq.) authorizes information collection by employers as necessary or
appropriate for enforcement of the OSH Act or for developing
information regarding the causes and prevention of occupational
injuries, illnesses, and accidents (29 U.S.C. 657). The OSH Act also
requires that OSHA obtain such information with minimum burden upon
employers, especially those operating small businesses, and to reduce
to the maximum extent feasible unnecessary duplication of efforts in
obtaining information (29 U.S.C. 657).
    The Standard specifies a number of collections of information
(paperwork) requirements. In general, the Standard requires employers
to develop a written fire safety plan and written statements or
policies that contain information about fire watches and fire response
duties and responsibilities. The Standard also requires the employer to
obtain medical exams for certain workers and to develop training
programs and to train employees exposed to fire hazards. Additionally,
the Standard requires employers to create and maintain records to
certify that employees have been made aware of the details of the fire
safety plan and that employees have been trained as required by the
Standard.

II. Special Issues for Comment

    OSHA has a particular interest in comments on the following issues:
     Whether the proposed information collection requirements
are necessary for the proper performance of the Agency's functions,
including whether the information is useful;
     The accuracy of OSHA's estimate of the burden (time and
costs) of the information collection requirements, including the
validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
     The quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and
     Ways to minimize the burden on employers who must comply;
for example, by using automated or other technological information
collection and transmission techniques.

III. Proposed Actions

    OSHA is requesting that OMB extend its approval of the information
collection requirements contained in the Standard on Fire Protection in
Shipyard Employment (29 CFR 1915.501-.509). The Agency is requesting
that the burden hours remain the same at 4,635 hours. The Agency will
summarize the comments submitted in response to this notice and will
include this summary in the request to OMB.
    Type of Review: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Title: Fire Protection in Shipyard Employment Standard (29 CFR
1915.501-.509).
    OMB Number: 1218-0248.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profits.
    Number of Respondents: 317.
    Frequency: On occasion; Quarterly; Annually.
    Average Time per Response: Varies from 5 minutes (.08 hour) for an
employer to post the fire safety plan or to place it in an area
accessible to employees to 12 hours for firms to develop a written fire
safety plan.
    Estimated Total Burden Hours: 4,635.
    Estimated Cost (Operation and Maintenance): $0.

IV. Public Participation--Submission of Comments on This Notice and
Internet Access to Comments and Submissions

    You may submit comments in response to this document as follows:
(1) Electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, which is the Federal
eRulemaking Portal; (2) by facsimile (FAX); or (3) by hard copy. All
comments, attachments, and other material must identify the Agency name
and the OSHA docket number for the ICR (Docket No. OSHA-2011-0010). You
may supplement electronic submissions by uploading document files
electronically. If you wish to mail additional materials in reference
to an electronic or facsimile submission, you must submit them to the
OSHA Docket Office (see the section of this notice titled ADDRESSES).
The additional materials must clearly identify your electronic comments
by your name, date, and the docket number, so the Agency can attach
them to your comments.
    Because of security procedures, the use of regular mail may cause a
significant delay in the receipt of comments. For information about
security procedures concerning the delivery of materials by hand,
express delivery, messenger, or courier service, please contact the
OSHA Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER>, (TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>).
    Comments and submissions are posted without change at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions commenters about
submitting personal information, such as social security numbers and
date of birth. Although all submissions are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index, some information (e.g., copyrighted

material) is not publicly available to read or download through this
Web site. All submissions, including copyrighted material, are
available for inspection and copying at the OSHA Docket Office.
Information on using the http://www.regulations.gov Web site to submit
comments and access the docket is available at the Web site's ``User
Tips'' link. Contact the OSHA Docket Office for information about
materials not available through the Web site and for assistance in
using the Internet to locate docket submissions.

V. Authority and Signature

    David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this
notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506 et seq.) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 4-2010
(75 FR 55355).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on January 13, 2011.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2011-1020 Filed 1-18-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


 N  1 APPENDIX N. IMAZAPYR Papers that Were Accepted for ECOTOX Acceptable for ECOTOX and OPP 1. Bovey, R. W. and Senseman, S. A. ( 1998). Response of Food and Forage Crops to Soil Applied Imazapyr. Weed Sci. 46: 614 617.

EcoReference No.: 63637 Chemical of Concern: IZP; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED( IZP).

2. Burnet, M. W. M., Hart, Q., Holtum, J. A. M., and Powles, S. B. ( 1994). Resistance to Nine Herbicide Classes in a Population of Rigid Ryegrass ( Lolium rigidum). Weed Sci. 42: 369 377.

EcoReference No.: 70736 Chemical of Concern: SZ, ATZ, SXD, IZP; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: GRO, PHY; Rejection Code: TARGET( SZ, SXD, IZP).

3. Charles, G. W. ( 1997). Herbicide Strategies for Reducing Nutgrass ( Cyperus rotundus L.) Density in Cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum L.). Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 37: 231 241.

EcoReference No.: 73428 Chemical of Concern: 24DXY, PDM, GYP, ATZ, DU, NFZ, IZP; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: GRO; Rejection Code: NO COC( MTL), TARGET( IZP).

4. Coffman, C. B., Frank, J. R., and Potts, W. E. ( 1993). Crop Responses to Hexazinone, Imazapyr, Tebuthiuron, and Triclopyr. Weed Technol. 7: 140 145.

EcoReference No.: 57805 Chemical of Concern: TPR, TET, IZP, HXZ; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: PHY; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED( IZP), OK( ALL CHEMS).

5. Creager, R. A. ( 1990). Control of Young Mediterranean Saltwort ( Salsola vermiculata) with Postemergence Herbicides. Weed Technol. 4: 376 379.

EcoReference No.: 70416 Chemical of Concern: SZ, ATZ, IZP, DMB; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR, GRO; Rejection Code: TARGET( SZ, DMB, IZP).

6. Fowlkes, M. D., Michael, J. L, Crisman, T. L, and Prenger, J. P. ( 2003). Effects of the Herbicide Imazapyr on Benthic Macroinvertebrates in a Logged Pond Cypress Dome. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 22: 900 907.

EcoReference No.: 68204 Chemical of Concern: IZP; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: GRO, POP; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED( IZP).

7. Grisolia, C. K. ( 2002). A Comparison Between Mouse and Fish Micronucleus Test Using Cyclophosphamide, Mitomycin C and Various Pesticides. Mutat. Res. 518: 145 150.

EcoReference No.: 74478 Chemical of Concern: THM, DM, IZP, GYP, DCF; Habitat: AT; Effect Codes: CEL; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL  N  2 CODED( IZP), OK( ALL CHEMS).

8. Kuk, Y. I., Kim, K. H., Kwon, O. D., Lee, D. J., Burgos, N. R., Jung, S., and Guh, J. O. ( 2003). Cross Resistance Pattern and Alternative Herbicides for Cyperus difformis Resistant to Sulfonylurea Herbicides in Korea. Pest Manag. Sci. 60: 85 94.

EcoReference No.: 74722 Chemical of Concern: MLT, TBC, BTC, CFZ, DTP, ODZ, IZP; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP, GRO; Rejection Code: NO ENDPOINT( MLT), TARGET( IZP).

9. Lawrie, J. and Clay, D. V. ( 1989). Tolerance of Forestry and Biomass Broad Leaved Tree Species to Soil Acting Herbicides. In: Br. Crop Prot. Counc., Brighton Crop Prot. Conf.: Weeds, Volumes 1 3, Int. Conf., Nov. 20 23, 1989, Brighton, England 347 354.

EcoReference No.: 70642 Chemical of Concern: SZ, ATZ, IZP; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP, GRO, BCM; Rejection Code: TARGET( SZ, IZP).

10. Masters, R. A., Stougaard, R. N., and Nissen, S. J. ( 1994). Leafy Spurge ( Euphorbia esula) Control with Fall Applied Imazapyr, Imazaquin and Imazethapyr. Weed Technol. 8: 58 63.

EcoReference No.: 56091 Chemical of Concern: IZT, IMQ, IZP; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED( IZP), OK( ALL CHEMS).

11. Osuna, M. D. and De Prado, R. ( 2003). Conyza albida: A New Biotype with ALS Inhibitor Resistance. Weed Res. 43: 221 226.

EcoReference No.: 72252 Chemical of Concern: SZ, DU, 24D, GLY, IZP; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: GRO; Rejection Code: TARGET( SZ, IZP).

12. Patten, K. ( 2003). Persistence and Non target Impact of Imazapyr Associated with Smooth Cordgrass Control in an Estuary. J. Aquat. Plant Manag. 41: 1 6.

EcoReference No.: 76872 Chemical of Concern: IZP, GYP; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: GRO, POP, BCM; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED( IZP), OK( ALL CHEMS).

13. Wilcut, J. W., Walls, F. R. Jr., and Horton, D. N. ( 1991). Imazethapyr for Broadleaf Weed Control in Peanuts ( Arachis hypogaea). Peanut Sci. 18: 26 30.

EcoReference No.: 73239 Chemical of Concern: MTL, IZP; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP; Rejection Code: NO MIXTURE( MTL), TARGET( IZP).

Acceptable for ECOTOX but not OPP 1. Clay, D. V. and West, T. M. ( 1987). The Response of Traizine Resistant and Susceptible Biotypes of Erigeron canadensis to 23 Herbicides. Meded. Fac. Landbouwwet. Rijksuniv. Gent 52: 1195 1206.

EcoReference No.: 70179 User Define 2: REPS, WASH, CALF, CORE, SENT  N  3 Chemical of Concern: SZ, PHMD, GYP, AMTL, 24DXY, TPR, OYZ, CPR, PCH, DU, NPP, OXF, NFZ, ODZ, PDM, PAQT, PYD, IZP, FXP; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: PHY, GRO; Rejection Code: NO ENDPOINT( ALL CHEMS).

2. Duncan, K. W. and McDaniel, K. C. ( 1998). Saltcedar ( Tamarix spp.) Management with Imazapyr. Weed Technol. 12: 337 344.

EcoReference No.: 64697 Chemical of Concern: IZP, GYP; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: NO ENDPOINT, CONTROL( IZP), NO MIXTURE( GYP).

3. Garcia Torres, L., Lopez Granados, F., and Castejon Munoz, M. ( 1994). Pre emergence Herbicides for the Control of Broomrape ( Orobanche cernua Loefl.) in Sunflower ( Helianthus annus L.). Weed Res. 34: 395 402.

EcoReference No.: 74066 Chemical of Concern: MTL, IZP, IMQ, PMS, TSF, ACO, IMB; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: GRO, PHY, POP; Rejection Code: NO ENDPOINT( ALL CHEMS).

4. Harrington, T. B., Minogue, P. J., Lauer, D. K., and Ezell, A. W. ( 1998). Two Year Development of Southern Pine Seedlings and Associated Vegetation Following Spray and Burn Site Preparation with Imazapyr Alone or in Mixture with Other Herbicides. New For. 15: 89 106.

EcoReference No.: 67263 Chemical of Concern: IZP, GYP, TPR; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP; Rejection Code: NO ENDPOINT( ALL CHEMS).

5. Jurado Exposito, M., Garcia Torres, L., and Castejon Munoz, M. ( 1997). Broad Bean and Lentil Seed Treatments with Imidazolinones for the Control of Broomrape ( Orobanche crenata). J. Agric. Sci. 129: 307 314.

EcoReference No.: 64689 Chemical of Concern: IZP, IZT; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: GRO, POP; Rejection Code: NO ENDPOINT( ALL CHEMS).

6. Kuhns, L. J. and Kaps, M. A. ( 1986). Sulfometuron Methyl and Imazapyr Applied as a Directed Spray on White Pine. Proc. Northeast. Weed Sci. Soc. 40: 263 264.

EcoReference No.: 31014 Chemical of Concern: IZP, SMM; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP, PHY; Rejection Code: NO ENDPOINT( ALL CHEMS).

7. Kuk, Y. I., Jung, H. I., Kwon, O. D., Lee, D. J., Burgos, N. R., and Guh, J. O. ( 2003). Sulfonylurea Herbicide Resistant Monochoria vaginalis in Korean Rice Culture. Pest Manag. Sci. 59: 949 961.

EcoReference No.: 74168 Chemical of Concern: MLT, IZP, IMQ, BSFM, BTC, DTP, TBC, 24DXY, BT; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: GRO, POP, BCM, PHY; Rejection Code: NO CONTROL( ALL CHEMS).

8. Kuk, Y. I., Kwon, O. D., Jung, H. I., Burgos, N. R., and Guh, J. O. ( 2002). Cross Resistance Pattern and Alternative Herbicides for Rotala indica Resistant to Imazosulfuron in Korea. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 74: 129 138.

EcoReference No.: 71288  N  4 Chemical of Concern: MLT, BSFM, IZP, IMQ, BTC, CFZ, TBC, MCPB; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: BCM, GRO, MOR; Rejection Code: NO MIXTURE( MLT, MCPB), NO ENDPOINT( IZP).

9. Office of Pesticide Programs ( 2000). Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database ( Formerly: Environmental Effects Database ( EEDB)). Environmental Fate and Effects Division, U. S. EPA, Washington, D. C.

EcoReference No.: 344 Chemical of Concern: 24DXY, ACL, ACP, ACR, ALSV, AQS, ATZ, AZ, BDF, BMC, BML, BMN, BRSM, BS, BT, CaPS, Captan, CBF, CBL, CFE, CFE, CLNB, CLP, CMPH, CPC, CPY, CTN, CTZ, Cu, CuO, CuS, CYD, CYF, CYP, CYT, DBN, DCNA, DDAC, DFT, DFZ, DM, DMB, DMM, DMP, DMT, DOD, DPC, DPDP, DS, DSP, DU, DZ, DZM, EFL, EFS, EFV, EP, FHX, FMP, FO, Folpet, FPP , FVL, GYP, HCCH, HXZ, IPD, IZP, LNR, MAL, MB, MBZ, MDT, MFX, MFZ, MGK, MLN, MLT, MOM, MP, MTC, MTL, MTM, NAA, Naled, NFZ, NPP, NTP, OXF, OXT, OYZ, PCP, PCZ, PDM, PEB, PHMD, PMR, PMT, PNB, PPB, PPG, PPMH, PQT, PRB, PRT, PSM, PYN, PYZ, RSM, RTN, SMM, SMT, SS, SXD, SZ, TBC, TDC, TDF, TDZ, TET, TFN, TFR, TMT, TPR , TRB, WFN, ZnP; Habitat: AT; Effect Codes: MOR, POP, PHY, GRO, REP; Rejection Code: NO EFED ( 344).

10. Roshon, R. D., McCann, J. H., Thompson, D. G., and Stephenson, G. R. ( 1999). Effects of Seven Forestry Management Herbicides on Myriophyllum sibiricum, as Compared with Other Nontarget Aquatic Organisms. Can. J. For. Res. 29: 1158 1169.

EcoReference No.: 60978 Chemical of Concern: 24DXY, GYP, HXZ, IZP, MSFM, SMM, TPR; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: GRO, MOR; Rejection Code: NO CONTROL( ALL CHEMS).

11. Shaner, D. L. ( 1988). Absorption and Translocation of Imazapyr in Imperata cylindrica ( L.) Raeuschel and Effects on Growth and Water Usage. Trop. Pest Manag. 34: 388 392.

EcoReference No.: 72379 Chemical of Concern: IZP; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: ACC, GRO, PHY; Rejection Code: NO ENDPOINT( IZP).

12. Siriworakul, M. and Benyasut, P. ( 1992). Control and Utilization of Cattail ( Typha latifolia L.). Manuscript, Weed Control and Research Branch, R. Irrig. Dep. Pakret Nonthaburi 11120, Thailand 13.

EcoReference No.: 13377 Chemical of Concern: GYP, IZP; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: POP; Rejection Code: NO ENDPOINT( ALL CHEMS).

13. Standell, C. J. and West, T. M. ( 1989). Response of Several Pasture Grass Species to Potential New Herbicides for Bracken Control. In: Br. Crop Prot. Counc., Brighton Crop Prot. Conf.: Weeds, Volumes 1 3, Int. Conf, Nov. 20 23, 1989, Brighton, England, U. K. 903 908.

EcoReference No.: 77489 Chemical of Concern: IZP, CSF, ASM, TSF; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP; Rejection Code: NO ENDPOINT( ALL CHEMS).

14. Supamataya, K., Papong, P., and Phromkunthong, W. ( 1981). Phytotoxicity of Herbicides in Water. I. Acute Toxicity of Imazapyron Nile Tilapia ( Sarotherodon niloticus) and Silver Barb ( Puntius goninotus). Songklanakarin J. Sci. Technol. 9( 3): 309 313 ( THA) ( ENG ABS).

EcoReference No.: 3994 Chemical of Concern: IZP; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: NO FOREIGN.

15. Yokoyama, T., Saka, H., Fujita, S., and Nishiuchi, Y. ( 1988). Sensitivity of Japanese Eel, Anguilla japonica,  N  5 to 68 Kinds of Agricultural Chemicals. Bull. Agric. Chem. Insp. Stn. 28: 26 33 ( JPN) ( ENG ABS).

EcoReference No.: 8570 Chemical of Concern: ACP, Captan, CBL, CTN, DMT, DS, DZ, FO, HXZ, MDT, MLN, MOM, PPG, PSM, TET, CYP, FVL, PMR, TFR, Cu, CuS, PC P, IZP; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: NO FOREIGN.


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 224 (Monday, November 21, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 83184-83189]
[FR Doc No: 2016-27924]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2015-0142; FRL-9954-66-Region 6]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Oklahoma; Infrastructure and Interstate Transport for the 2012 Fine
Particulate Matter and Interstate Transport for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide
National Ambient Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve and disapprove elements of State Implementation Plan (SIP)
submissions from the State of Oklahoma for the 2012 Fine Particulate
Matter (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS
or standard) and the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) NAAQS. The
2012 PM2.5 submission addresses how the existing SIP
provides for implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of this NAAQS
(infrastructure SIP or i-SIP). The i-SIP ensures that the Oklahoma SIP
is adequate to meet the State's responsibilities under the Federal
Clean Air Act (CAA). The majority of the 2010 SO2 submission
was addressed in a separate rulemaking, only the visibility component
listed in 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) is being addressed in this action.
    We are proposing to disapprove the visibility component of
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), often referred to as prong 4. We are also
proposing to disapprove the portion of the January 28, 2015 SIP
submission from Oklahoma for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
NAAQS only as it addresses Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for visibility
protection.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before December 21,
2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2015-0142, at http://www.regulations.gov or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written
comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please contact Tracie Donaldson, (214)
665-6633<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    Docket: The docket index and publicly available docket materials
for this action are available electronically at www.regulations.gov and
in hard copy at EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas,
Texas. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some
information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location
(e.g., copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly available at
either location (e.g., CBI).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tracie Donaldson,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>To inspect the hard copy materials, please
schedule an appointment with her or Bill Deese at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

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

I. Background

    On October 17, 2006, following a periodic review of the NAAQS for
PM2.5, EPA revised the PM2.5 NAAQS. The 24-hour
standard was revised to 35 micrograms per cubic meter ([micro]g/m3),
and the annual standard was revised to 15 [micro]g/m3 (71 FR 61144). On
December 14, 2012, we promulgated a revised

primary annual PM2.5 NAAQS (78 FR 3086). The primary annual
standard was revised to 12.0 [micro]g/m3, and we retained the 24-hour
PM2.5 standard of 35 [micro]g/m3 (78 FR 3086). For more
information on this standard, please visit https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants. Oklahoma submitted an i-SIP revision on June
16, 2016 to address this revised NAAQS.
    On June 22, 2010, we revised the primary NAAQS for SO2
to establish a new 1-hour standard at a level of 75 ppb, based on the
3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum
concentrations (75 FR 35520).
    Pursuant to section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, states are required to
submit i-SIPs that provide for the implementation, maintenance and
enforcement of a new or revised NAAQS within 3 years following the
promulgation of such new or revised NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) lists
specific requirements that i-SIPs must include to adequately address
such new or revised NAAQS, as applicable. In an effort to assist states
in complying with this requirement, EPA issued guidance addressing the
i-SIP.
    Our technical evaluation of the Oklahoma 2012 PM2.5
submittal is provided in the Technical Support Document (TSD), which is
in the docket for this rulemaking.\1\ Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), which
addresses the contribution to nonattainment and interference with
maintenance of the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS in other states; was not
included in this submittal and will be addressed by Oklahoma in a
separate submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Additional information on: EPA's approach for reviewing i-
SIPs; the details of the SIP submittal and EPA's evaluation; the
effect of recent court decisions on i-SIPs; the statute and
regulatory citations in the Oklahoma SIP specific to this review;
the specific applicable CAA and EPA regulatory citations; Federal
Register citations for Oklahoma SIP approvals; Oklahoma minor New
Source Review program and EPA approval activities; and Oklahoma
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program can be found
in the TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. EPA's Evaluation of the Oklahoma PM2.5 i-SIP and
Interstate Transport Submittals

    The State's submittal on June 16, 2016 demonstrates how the
existing Oklahoma SIP meets the infrastructure requirements for the
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. A summary of our evaluation of the
Oklahoma SIP for each applicable element of CAA section 110(a)(2)(A)-
(M) follows.
    (A) Emission limits and other control measures: CAA section
110(a)(2)(A) requires SIPs to include enforceable emission limits and
other control measures, means or techniques, as well as schedules and
timetables for compliance, as may be necessary or appropriate to meet
the applicable requirements of the Act, and other related matters as
needed to implement, maintain and enforce each of the NAAQS.\2\ The
Oklahoma Clean Air Act (OCAA) provides the Oklahoma Department of
Environmental Quality (ODEQ) with broad legal authority, to establish
and implement air quality programs and enforce regulations it has
promulgated. The ODEQ has authority to: adopt emission standards and
compliance schedules applicable to regulated entities; adopt other
measures necessary for attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS; enforce
applicable laws, regulations, standards and compliance schedules; and
seek injunctive relief.\3\ The approved SIP for Oklahoma is documented
at 40 CFR part 52.1920, Subpart LL. Most of the State's air quality
rules and standards are codified at Title 252, Chapter 100 of the
Oklahoma Administrative Code (denoted OAC 252:100). A detailed list of
the applicable rules at OAC 252:100 and elsewhere in the OAC, along
with the citations for approval into the SIP, is provided in Table 1 of
the TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The specific nonattainment area plan requirements of section
110(a)(2)(I) are subject to the timing requirements of section 172,
not the timing requirement of section 110(a)(1). Thus, section
110(a)(2)(A) does not require that states submit regulations or
emissions limits specifically for attaining the NAAQS. Those SIP
provisions are due as part of each state's attainment plan, and will
be addressed separately from the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(A). In the context of an i-SIP, we are not evaluating the
existing SIP provisions for this purpose. Instead, EPA is only
evaluating whether the Oklahoma SIP has basic structural provisions
for the implementation of the NAAQS.
    \3\ Please see the TSD for our complete analysis and citations
to the specific provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (B) Ambient air quality monitoring/data system: CAA section
110(a)(2)(B) requires SIPs to provide for establishment and
implementation of ambient air quality monitors, collection and analysis
of monitoring data, and providing such data to EPA upon request. The
OCAA provides the authority allowing the ODEQ to collect air monitoring
data, quality-assure the results, and report the data.\4\ The ODEQ
maintains and operates a monitoring network to measure ambient levels
of the pollutants in accordance with EPA regulations which specify
siting and monitoring requirements. All monitoring data is measured
using EPA approved methods and subject to EPA quality assurance
requirements. The ODEQ submits all required data to EPA in accordance
with EPA regulations. The monitoring network was approved into the SIP
and undergoes annual review by EPA.\5\ In addition, 40 CFR 58.10(d)
requires that state assess their monitoring network every five years.
The ODEQ submitted their 5-year monitoring network assessments to us on
April 11, 2016. Our comments on the 5-year assessment, dated July 22,
2016, are in the docket for this rulemaking.\6\ The ODEQ Web site
identifies Oklahoma's ambient monitor locations, and provides past and
current concentrations of criteria pollutants measured by the State's
monitors.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Please see the TSD for our complete analysis and citations
to the specific provisions.
    \5\ A copy of the 2016 Annual Air Monitoring Network Plan and
EPA's approval letter are included in the docket for this proposed
rulemaking.
    \6\ A copy of the ODEQ's 5-year monitoring network assessment
and EPA's evaluation are included in the docket for this proposed
rulemaking.
    \7\ see http://www.ODEQ.Oklahoma.gov/airquality/monops/sites/mon_sites.html and http://www17.ODEQ.Oklahoma.gov/tamis/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.welcome.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (C) Program for enforcement: CAA section 110(a)(2)(C) requires SIPs
to include the following three elements: (1) A program providing for
enforcement of the measures in paragraph A above; (2) a program for the
regulation of the modification and construction of stationary sources
as necessary to protect the applicable NAAQS (i.e., state-wide
permitting of minor sources); and (3) a permit program to meet the
major source permitting requirements of the CAA (for areas designated
as attainment or unclassifiable for the NAAQS in question).\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See TSD, beginning on page 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) Enforcement of SIP Measures. As noted earlier in section
110(a)(2)(A), the ODEQ and its Executive Director have the authority to
enforce the requirements of the OCAA and any regulations, permits, or
final compliance orders. This statute also provides the ODEQ and its
Executive Director with general enforcement powers. Among other things,
they can investigate regulated entities; issue field citations and
compliance orders; file lawsuits to compel compliance with the statutes
and regulations; commence civil actions; pursue criminal prosecutions;
collect criminal and civil penalties; enter into remediation
agreements; and issue emergency orders to cease operations. The OCAA
also provides additional enforcement authorities and funding
mechanisms.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Please see the TSD for our complete analysis and citations
to the specific provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Minor New Source Review (NSR). The CAA requires the SIP to
include measures to regulate construction and modification of
stationary sources to

protect the NAAQS. The Oklahoma minor NSR permitting requirements have
been approved in the SIP.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove the existing
Oklahoma minor NSR program to the extent that it may be inconsistent
with EPA's regulations governing this program. EPA has maintained
that the CAA does not require that new infrastructure SIP
submissions correct any defects in existing EPA-approved provisions
of minor NSR programs in order for EPA to approve the infrastructure
SIP for element C (e.g., 76 FR 41076-41079). EPA believes that a
number of states may have minor NSR provisions that are contrary to
the existing EPA regulations for this program. The statutory
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) provide for considerable
flexibility in designing minor NSR programs. Citations for the
Oklahoma NSR program are provided in our TSD for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (3) Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit program.
Oklahoma's PSD program covers all NSR regulated pollutants, as well as
the NAAQS subject to our review contained herein, and has been approved
by EPA into the SIP.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See 79 FR 66626, November 10, 2014 and the TSD for further
discussion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (D)(i) Interstate Pollution Transport: There are four requirements
the SIP must include relating to interstate transport. The SIP must
prohibit emissions within Oklahoma from contributing significantly to
the nonattainment of the NAAQS in other states, and from interfering
with the maintenance of the NAAQS in other states (section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)). The SIP must also prohibit emissions within
Oklahoma both from interfering with measures required to prevent
significant deterioration in other states and from interfering with
measures required to protect visibility in other states (section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)).
    At this time ODEQ has not submitted the infrastructure submittal
regarding the prevention of emissions which significantly contribute to
nonattainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS in other states, and
interference with the maintenance of the PM2.5 NAAQS in
other states (110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)). We are taking action on the portion
of the submittal addressing prevention of significant deterioration in
other states and on visibility protection (110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)).
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) consists of two provisions, prohibiting
emissions which will interfere with measures required to be included in
the SIP for any other State to prevent significant deterioration of (1)
air quality and (2) protect visibility. Oklahoma has an approved PSD
program which satisfies (1) above. The program regulates all NSR
pollutants, including GHG, which prevents significant deterioration in
nearby states.
    We find that Oklahoma has not included measures that conform to the
mutually agreed upon regional haze reasonable progress goals. A FIP
cannot be relied upon to satisfy this requirement.\12\ We are proposing
to disapprove this sub-element (often referred to as prong 4) of the i-
SIP submission (110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)) for visibility protection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ We finalized a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) that in
combination with the controls required by the portion of the
Oklahoma RH submittal approved in the same rulemaking, would serve
to prevent sources in Oklahoma from emitting pollutants in amounts
that would interfere with efforts to protect visibility in other
states. 76 FR 81728 (December 28, 2011). As explained in the i-SIP
guidance, ``it is the EPA's interpretation of sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2) that the EPA cannot give `credit' for the FIP when
determining whether an agency'' has met its obligations under these
sections. Therefore, while the FIP provides an appropriate level of
PM2.5 control, the SIP does not and thus our proposal to
disapprove for the visibility prong only.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (D)(ii)Interstate Pollution Abatement and International Air
Pollution: Pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), states must comply
with the requirements listed in sections 115 and 126 of the CAA which
were designed to aid in the abatement of interstate and international
pollution. Section 126(a) requires new or modified sources to notify
neighboring states of potential impacts from the source. Oklahoma's PSD
program contains the element pertaining to notification of neighboring
states of the issuance of PSD permits. Section 115 relates to
international pollution abatement. There are no findings by EPA that
air emissions originating in Oklahoma affect other countries. Thus, the
Oklahoma SIP satisfies the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for
the four NAAQS discussed herein.
    (E) Adequate authority, resources, implementation, and oversight:
The SIP must provide for the following: (1) Necessary assurances that
the state (and other entities within the state responsible for
implementing the SIP) will have adequate personnel, funding, and
authority under state or local law to implement the SIP, and that there
are no legal impediments to such implementation; (2) compliance with
requirements relating to state boards as explained in section 128 of
the CAA; and (3) necessary assurances that the state has responsibility
for ensuring adequate implementation of any plan provision for which it
relies on local governments or other entities to carry out that portion
of the plan.
    Sections 110(a)(2)(A) and (C), discussed earlier in this
rulemaking, also require that the state have adequate authority to
implement and enforce the SIP without legal impediments. The State's
submittals describe the Oklahoma statutes and SIP regulations governing
the various functions of personnel within the ODEQ, including the
administrative, technical support, planning, enforcement, and
permitting functions of the program. See the TSD for further detail.
    With respect to funding, the OCAA and the SIP provide the ODEQ with
authority to hire and compensate employees; accept and administer
grants or other funds; require the ODEQ to establish an emissions fee
schedule for sources in order to fund the reasonable costs of
administering various air pollution control programs; and authorizes
the ODEQ to collect additional fees necessary to cover reasonable costs
associated with processing air permit applications. The EPA conducts
periodic program reviews to ensure that the state has adequate
resources and funding to, among other things, implement and enforce the
SIP. See the OCAA and 27A O.S. 2-5-105.
    As required by the CAA, the Oklahoma statutes and the SIP stipulate
that any board or body that approves permits or enforcement orders must
have at least a majority of members who represent the public interest
and do not derive any ``significant portion'' of their income from
persons subject to permits and enforcement orders; and the members of
the board or body, or the head of an agency with similar powers, are
required to adequately disclose any potential conflicts of interest.
See 27A O.S. 2-3-101 (addressing staff) and 27A O.S. 2-3-201
(addressing the Executive Director).
    Oklahoma has not delegated authority to implement any of the
provisions of its plan to local governmental entities--the ODEQ acts as
the primary air pollution control agency.
    (F) Stationary source monitoring system: The SIP must provide for
the establishment of a system to monitor emissions from stationary
sources and to submit periodic emission reports. It must require the
installation, maintenance, and replacement of equipment, and the
implementation of other necessary steps, by owners or operators of
stationary sources, to monitor emissions from sources. The SIP shall
also require periodic reports on the nature and amounts of emissions
and emissions-related data from sources, and require that the state
correlate the source reports with emission limitations or standards
established under the CAA. These reports must be made available for
public inspection at reasonable times.

    The OCAA and SIP require stationary sources to monitor or test
emissions and to file reports containing information relating to the
nature and amount of emissions. There also are SIP-approved State
regulations pertaining to sampling and testing and requirements for
reporting of emissions inventories. In addition, SIP-approved rules
establish general requirements for maintaining records and reporting
emissions.\13\ The ODEQ uses this information, in addition to
information obtained from other sources, to track progress towards
maintaining the NAAQS, developing control and maintenance strategies,
identifying sources and general emission levels, and determining
compliance with SIP-approved regulations and additional EPA
requirements. The SIP requires this information be made available to
the public. Provisions concerning the handling of confidential data and
proprietary business information are included in the SIP-approved
regulations. These rules specifically exclude from confidential
treatment any records concerning the nature and amount of emissions
reported by sources. Please see the Table 4 in the TSD for the specific
relevant state regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ A list of such rules and SIP approval dates are provided in
Table 4 of the TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (G) Emergency authority: The SIP must provide the ODEQ with
authority to restrain any source from causing imminent and substantial
endangerment to public health or welfare or the environment. The SIP
must include an adequate contingency plan to implement the ODEQ's
emergency authority.
    The OCAA provides the ODEQ with authority to address environmental
emergencies. The ODEQ has an ``Emergency Episode Plan,'' which includes
contingency measures and these provisions are in the SIP (56 FR 5656).
The ODEQ has general emergency powers to address any possible dangerous
air pollution episode if necessary to protect the environment and
public health.
    (H) Future SIP revisions: States must have the authority to revise
their SIPs in response to changes in the NAAQS, availability of
improved methods for attaining the NAAQS, or in response to an EPA
finding that the SIP is substantially inadequate to attain the NAAQS.
The OCAA authorizes the ODEQ to revise the Oklahoma SIP as necessary,
to account for revisions to an existing NAAQS, establishment of a new
NAAQS, to attain and maintain a NAAQS, to abate air pollution, to adopt
more effective methods of attaining a NAAQS, and to respond to EPA SIP
calls concerning NAAQS adoption or implementation.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Please see the TSD for our complete analysis and citations
to the specific provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (I) Nonattainment areas: Section 110(a)(2)(I) of the Act requires
that in the case of a plan or plan revision for areas designated as
nonattainment, states must meet applicable requirements of part D of
the CAA, relating to SIP requirements for designated nonattainment
areas. There are no areas designated as nonattainment for
PM2.5 in Oklahoma. In addition, EPA believes that
nonattainment area requirements should be treated separately from the
infrastructure SIP requirements. The specific SIP submissions for
designated nonattainment areas, as required under CAA title I, part D,
are subject to different submission schedules than those required for
section 110 infrastructure elements. EPA will take action on any part D
attainment plan SIP submissions through a separate rulemaking process
governed by the requirements for nonattainment areas, as described in
part D.
    (J) Consultation with government officials, public notification,
PSD and visibility protection: The SIP must meet the following three
CAA requirements: (1) The interagency consultation requirements found
in section 121; (2) the public notification requirements found in
section 127; and, (3) prevention of significant deterioration of air
quality and visibility protection.
    (1) Interagency consultation: As required by the OCAA and the
Oklahoma SIP, there must be a public hearing before the adoption of any
regulations or emission control requirements, and all interested
persons must be given a reasonable opportunity to review the action
that is being proposed and to submit data or arguments, and to examine
the testimony of witnesses from the hearing. In addition, the OCAA
provides the ODEQ the power and duty to advise, consult and cooperate
with other agencies of the State, towns, cities, counties, industries,
other states, and the federal government regarding the prevention and
control of new and existing air contamination sources in the State.
Furthermore, the Oklahoma PSD SIP rules mandate that the ODEQ shall
provide for public participation and notification regarding permitting
applications to any other state or local air pollution control
agencies, local government officials of the city or county where the
source will be located, tribal authorities, and Federal Land Managers
(FLMs) whose lands may be affected by emissions from the source or
modification.\15\ Additionally, the State's PSD SIP rules require the
ODEQ to consult with FLMs regarding permit applications for sources
with the potential to impact Class I Federal Areas. The SIP also
includes a commitment to consult continually with the FLMs on the
review and implementation of the visibility program, and the State
recognizes the expertise of the FLMs in monitoring and new source
review applicability analyses for visibility and has agreed to notify
the FLMs of any advance notification or early consultation with a major
new or modifying source prior to the submission of a permit
application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Please see the TSD for our complete analysis and citations
to the specific provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (2) Public Notification: The ODEQ regularly notifies the public of
instances or areas in which any NAAQS are exceeded. Included in the SIP
are the rules for ODEQ to advise the public of the health hazard
associated with such exceedances, enhance public awareness of measures
that can prevent such exceedances, and inform the public on how it can
participate in regulatory and other efforts to improve air quality. In
addition, as described in the discussion of section 110(a)(2)(B)
earlier in this rulemaking, the ODEQ air monitoring Web site provides
quality data for each of the monitoring stations in Oklahoma; this data
is provided instantaneously for certain pollutants, such as ozone. The
Web site also provides information on the health effects of all six
criteria pollutants.
    (3) PSD and Visibility Protection: The PSD requirements for this
element are the same as those addressed under 110(a)(2)(C) earlier in
this rulemaking--the State has a SIP-approved PSD program, so this
requirement has been met. The Oklahoma SIP requirements relating to
visibility and regional haze are not affected when EPA establishes or
revises a NAAQS. Therefore, EPA believes that there are no new
visibility protection requirements due to the revision of
PM2.5 NAAQS in 2012, and consequently there are no newly
applicable visibility protection obligations here.
    (K) Air quality and modeling/data: The SIP must provide for
performing air quality modeling, as prescribed by EPA, to predict the
effects on ambient air quality of any emissions of any NAAQS pollutant,
and for submission of such data to EPA upon request.
    The ODEQ has the authority and duty under the OCAA to conduct air
quality

research and assessments, including the causes, effects, prevention,
control and abatement of air pollution. Past modeling and emissions
reductions measures have been submitted by the State and approved into
the SIP. Additionally, the ODEQ has the ability to perform modeling for
the NAAQS on a case-by-case permit basis consistent with their SIP-
approved PSD rules and EPA guidance. Furthermore, the OCAA empowers the
ODEQ to cooperate with the federal government and others concerning
matters of common interest in the field of air quality control, thereby
allowing the agency to make such submissions to the EPA.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Please see the TSD for our complete analysis and citations
to the specific provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (L) Permitting Fees: The SIP must require each major stationary
source to pay permitting fees to the permitting authority as a
condition of any permit required under the CAA. The fees cover the cost
of reviewing and acting upon any application for such a permit, and, if
the permit is issued, the costs of implementing and enforcing the terms
of the permit. The fee requirement applies until such a time when a fee
program is established by the state pursuant to Title V of the CAA, and
is submitted to and is approved by EPA. The State has met this
requirement as it has a fully developed fee system in place and
approved in the SIP. See also the discussion of section 110(a)(2)(E)
earlier in this rulemaking action. Regulation 1.4.1(d) of the Oklahoma
Air Pollution Control Regulations provides for permit fees, and was
approved by EPA into the Oklahoma SIP on August 25, 1983 (48 FR 38635).
The Oklahoma SIP also addresses annual operating fees at OAC 100-5 (see
75 FR 72695).
    (M) Consultation/participation by affected local entities: The SIP
must provide for consultation and participation by local political
subdivisions affected by the SIP.
    See the discussion of section 110(a)(2)(J)(1) and (2) earlier in
this proposed rulemaking for a description of the SIP's public
participation process, the authority to advise and consult, and the PSD
SIP public participation requirements. Additionally, the OCAA requires
cooperative action between itself and other agencies of the State,
towns, cities, counties, industry, other states, affected groups, and
the federal government in the prevention and control of air pollution.

III. EPA's Evaluation of the Oklahoma SO2 Interstate
Transport Submittal

    (D)(i) Interstate Pollution Transport: There are four requirements
the SIP must include relating to interstate transport. The SIP must
prohibit emissions within Oklahoma from contributing significantly to
the nonattainment of the NAAQS in other states, and from interfering
with the maintenance of the NAAQS in other states (section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)). The SIP must also prohibit emissions within
Oklahoma both from interfering with measures required to prevent
significant deterioration in other states and from interfering with
measures required to protect visibility in other states (section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)).
    States can satisfy the requirement to prevent interference with
another state's measures to protect visibility by having an EPA
approved Regional Haze Program in place. State agencies may also
``elect to satisfy prong 4 by providing, as an alternative to relying
on its regional haze SIP alone, a demonstration in its infrastructure
SIP submission that emissions within its jurisdiction do not interfere
with other air agencies' plans to protect visibility.'' \17\ Oklahoma
did not include such a demonstration with its i-SIP submittal. On
December 28, 2011, we finalized a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP)
that in combination with the controls required by the portion of the
Oklahoma RH submittal approved in the same rulemaking, would serve to
prevent sources in Oklahoma from emitting pollutants in amounts that
would interfere with efforts to protect visibility in other states (76
FR 81728). On March 7, 2014, we withdrew the Oklahoma RH and Interstate
Transport FIPs' applicability to two units,\18\ but the FIP provisions
applicable to Oklahoma Gas and Electric's Muscogee and Sooner plants
remain in place (79 FR 12954). As explained in the i-SIP guidance, ``it
is the EPA's interpretation of sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) that
the EPA cannot give `credit' for the FIP when determining whether an
agency'' has met its obligations under these sections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plans (SIP)
Elements Under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2).
September 13, 2013, p. 34.
    \18\ These are Units 3 and 4 of the Northeastern Power Station
in Rogers County, Oklahoma, which is operated by the American
Electric Power/Public Service Company of Oklahoma.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, while the FIP provides an appropriate level of
SO2 control, the SIP does not and thus our proposal to
disapprove for the visibility prong only.

IV. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to partially approve and partially disapprove the
June 16, 2016, infrastructure SIP submission from Oklahoma, which
addresses the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2) as
applicable to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    Based upon review of this infrastructure SIP submission and
relevant statutory and regulatory authorities and provisions referenced
in these submissions or referenced in the Oklahoma SIP, we believe
Oklahoma has the infrastructure in place to address the following
required elements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) to ensure that the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS are implemented in the State:
    Sections 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(II) for interference with
PSD, (D)(ii), (E)(i), (E)(ii), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L) and (M).
    We are not proposing to approve Interstate transport provisions
(prongs 1&2): Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) which were not included in
this submission.
    We are proposing to disapprove the Interstate transport provisions
for visibility protection (prong 4): Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
    We are also proposing to disapprove the January 28, 2015 SIP
submission from Oklahoma for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)
NAAQS only as it addresses Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) for visibility
protection (prong 4).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for
review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the PRA. There is no burden imposed under the PRA because this action
merely proposes to approve i-SIP provisions that are consistent with
the CAA and disapprove i-SIP provisions that are inconsistent with the
CAA.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action merely proposes to approve i-SIP provisions that are consistent
with the CAA and disapprove i-SIP provisions that are inconsistent with
the CAA; therefore this action will not impose any requirements on
small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state,
local or tribal governments or the private sector. This action merely
proposes to approve i-SIP provisions that are consistent with the CAA
and disapprove i-SIP provisions that are inconsistent with the CAA; and
therefore will have no impact on small governments.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will 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.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. This action does not apply on any Indian
reservation land, any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction, or non-reservation areas of
Indian country. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this
action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it merely proposes to disapprove a SIP
submission as not meeting the CAA.

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed
by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income
or indigenous populations. This action merely proposes to approve i-SIP
provisions that are consistent with the CAA and disapprove i-SIP
provisions that are inconsistent with the CAA.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Interstate transport of
pollution, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides.

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

    Dated: November 15, 2016.
Ron Curry,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2016-27924 Filed 11-18-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: December 11, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 239)]
[Notices]
[Page 75486-75487]
[DOCID:fr11de08-105]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-59046; File No. SR-OCC-2007-16]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation;
Order Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Late
Exercises

December 3, 2008.

I. Introduction

    On December 7, 2007, The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission a proposed rule
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder \2\ to amend OCC's rules
relating to the submission of late items and the fees associated with
filing exercise notices after the start of critical processing. The
proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register
on April 7, 2008.\3\ No comment letters were received on the proposal.
This order approves the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57584 (Mar. 31, 2008),
73 FR 18844.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposal

    The rule filing will amend OCC's (1) Rule 801 to modify the fee
applied to exercise notices that are accepted by OCC after the start of
critical processing, (2) Rule 805 to make conforming changes to the
filing fees applied to the submission of supplementary exercise notices
tendered after critical processing, and (3) Rule 205 to clarify the
unusual or unforeseen circumstances when OCC may extend the cut-off
time for submitting instructions to OCC.
    Rule 801 addresses the exercise of options other than at
expiration. Subject to specified exceptions and conditions, Rule 801(d)
grants certain individuals \4\ the discretion to permit a clearing
member to file, revoke, or modify any exercise notice after the
prescribed deadline for the purpose of correcting a bona fide error.
However, the requesting clearing member is liable to OCC for a late
filing fee in escalating increments and time segments. Prior to this
rule change, these fees were:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Those individuals are OCC's Chairman, Management Vice
Chairman, President, or a designee of such officer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (i) A fee of $5,000 for any request accepted between the prescribed
deadline and the start of critical processing (provided that the
request did not materially affect such start time) \5\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The current deadline for submitting exercise notices is 7
p.m. CT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (ii) a filing fee of $20,000 per line item listed on any exercise
notice accepted for filing after the start of critical processing, with
50% of the fee to be distributed to the assigned clearing member or on
a pro rata basis if more than one clearing member is assigned.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ OCC will accept exercises until as late as 6:30 a.m.
However, OCC will not accept a request to revoke or modify an
exercise after the start of critical processing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Clearing members with short positions that had been assigned a late
exercise were to receive notification thereof by 8 a.m. CT.
    Under this rule change, OCC will eliminate the $5,000 filing fee
for late exercise requests filed prior to the start of critical
processing but will raise the filing fee for late exercise requests
submitted after the start of critical processing from $20,000 to
$75,000 per line item. For consistency, OCC also will modify the fees
applicable to the submission of supplementary exercise notices at
expiration as set forth in Rule 805.\7\ Accordingly, OCC will amend
Rule 805's filing fees to conform them to the changes being made in
Rule 801.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ It has been at least five years since a supplementary
exercise notice has been submitted for processing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By increasing the cost of filing late exercise requests after the
start of critical processing, OCC intends to provide an incentive for
firms to improve back office processing as well as to provide greater
compensation to clearing members receiving ``late assignments'' while
at the same time

preserving the ability of firms to correct bona fide errors.
    As explained in the Commission's notice of OCC's proposed rule
change,\8\ the primary reason for this rule change is that there were
only a few late exercise requests that OCC received during the period
January 2006 through March 2007.\9\ Specifically, there were five
requests for late exercises from five different firms relating to 14
line items with values ranging from $124,000 to $270,000. All requests
were received after the start of critical processing, requiring OCC to
run supplemental exercise procedures after nightly processing had been
completed. Such processing was initiated following the 6:30 a.m. (CT)
cut-off time for late exercise requests,\10\ and all assigned firms
were notified before the 8 a.m. (CT) deadline. Although no late
exercise requests were received between the deadline for submitting
exercises and the start of critical processing during the above-
referenced review period, OCC determined that, upon request, its
operations staff would extend the deadline by a reasonable period in
the event an exchange, clearing member, or OCC experienced system or
operational problems that prevented one or more clearing members from
submitting exercises on a timely basis.\11\ The payment of the
applicable filing fee in such instances was neither required nor has it
typically been required for requests received before the start of
critical processing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Supra note 3.
    \9\ From April 2007 to October 2007 there were no requests to
submit a late exercise although in each of June and September 2007,
OCC received an inquiry regarding a possible submission. However,
the clearing members involved elected not to formally file such a
request.
    \10\ Systemic and operational constraints preclude OCC from
processing late exercise requests at an earlier time.
    \11\ Subject to OCC's need to start critical processing, the
deadline for submitting exercise notices may be extended if
``unforeseen conditions'' prevent their submission by a clearing
member (OCC Rule 205). OCC has concluded that its authority to
extend such deadlines should more explicitly reference systemic or
operational problems or other unforeseen conditions experienced by
additional industry participants that may impact the timely
submission of exercise notices.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion

    Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \12\ requires that the rules of a
clearing agency be designed to promote the prompt and accurate
clearance and settlement of securities transactions. The Commission
finds that OCC's proposed rule change is consistent with this
requirement because the new fee structure should provide an incentive
for clearing members to improve their back office processing with
respect to determining positions for which an exercise notice is to be
submitted in order to reduce the frequency that they file late exercise
requests while preserving their ability to correct bona fide
operational errors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    On the basis of the foregoing, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and
in particular Section 17A of the Act \13\ and the rules and regulations
thereunder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
that the proposed rule change (File No. SR-OCC-2007-16), as amended, be
and hereby is approved. In approving the proposed rule change, the
Commission considered the proposal's impact on efficiency, competition
and capital formation.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).

    For the Commission by the Division of Trading and Markets
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-29250 Filed 12-10-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 141 (Thursday, July 23, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 43628-43631]
[FR Doc No: 2015-17852]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2010-0460; A-1-FRL-9930-94-Region 1]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Rhode Island; Control of Volatile Organic Compounds From Adhesives and
Sealants

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Rhode
Island. This revision includes a regulation adopted by Rhode Island
that establishes and requires Reasonably Available Control Technology
(RACT) for volatile organic compound (VOC) sources of emissions from
miscellaneous adhesives and sealants. The intended effect of this
action is to approve these requirements into the Rhode Island SIP. This
action is being taken in accordance with the Clean Air Act.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective September 21, 2015,
unless EPA receives adverse comments by August 24, 2015. 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 Number EPA-
R01-OAR-2010-0460 by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: Docket Identification Number EPA-R01-OAR-2010-0460, Anne
Arnold, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional
Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air Quality Planning Unit, 5
Post Office Square--Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-
3912.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: Anne Arnold,
Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, Office of Ecosystem Protection,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office,
5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-
3912. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's
normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
legal holidays.

    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No EPA-R01-OAR-
2010-0460. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit through www.regulations.gov, or
email, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email
comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your
email address will be automatically captured and included as part of
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA

recommends that you include your name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters,
any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England
Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection, 5 Post Office Square--
Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
excluding legal holidays.
    In addition, copies of the state submittal are also available for
public inspection during normal business hours, by appointment at the
State Air Agency; Office of Air Resources, Department of Environmental
Management, 235 Promenade Street, Providence, RI 02908-5767.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Mackintosh, Air Quality Unit,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office,
5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-
3912, telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
    Organization of this document. The following outline is provided to
aid in locating information in this preamble.

I. Background
II. Rhode Island's SIP Revision
III. EPA's Evaluation of Rhode Island's SIP Revision
IV. Final Action
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    In 1997, EPA revised the health-based National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS) for ozone, setting it at 0.08 parts per million (ppm)
averaged over an 8-hour time frame. EPA set the 8-hour ozone standard
based on scientific evidence demonstrating that ozone causes adverse
health effects at lower ozone concentrations and over longer periods of
time than was understood when the pre-existing 1-hour ozone standard
was set. EPA determined that the 8-hour standard would be more
protective of human health, especially with regard to children and
adults who are active outdoors, and individuals with a pre-existing
respiratory disease, such as asthma. On April 30, 2004, pursuant to the
Federal Clean Air Act (the Act, or CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq., EPA
designated portions of the country as being in nonattainment of the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (69 FR 23858). The entire State of Rhode Island
was designated as nonattainment for ozone and classified as moderate.
The entire State of Rhode Island is also part of the Ozone Transport
Region (OTR) under Section 184(a) of the CAA. Sections 182(b)(2) and
184 of the CAA compel states with moderate and above ozone
nonattainment areas, as well as areas in the OTR respectively, to
submit a revision to their applicable State Implementation Plan (SIP)
to include provisions to require the implementation of reasonable
available control technology (RACT) for sources covered by a Control
Techniques Guideline (CTG) and for all major sources. A CTG is a
document issued by EPA which establishes a ``presumptive norm'' for
RACT for a specific VOC source category.
    EPA has determined that States which have RACT provisions approved
in their SIPs for the 1-hour ozone standard have several options for
fulfilling the RACT requirements for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. If a State
meets certain conditions, it may certify that previously adopted 1-hour
ozone RACT controls in the SIP continue to represent RACT control
levels for purposes of fulfilling 8-hour ozone RACT requirements.
Alternatively, a State may establish new or more stringent requirements
that represent RACT control levels, either in lieu of, or in
conjunction with, a certification. In addition, a State may submit a
negative declaration if there are no CTG sources or major sources of
VOC and NOx emissions in lieu of, or in addition to, a certification.
See Final Rule to Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standard--Phase 2 (the Phase 2 Rule) (70 FR 71612; November 29,
2005).
    As noted in the EPA's Phase 2 ozone implementation rule, the RACT
submittal for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard was due from Rhode Island
on September 16, 2006. (See 40 CFR 51.916(b)(2).) On March 24, 2008 (73
FR 15416), EPA issued a finding of failure to submit to Rhode Island
for the 1997 8-hour ozone RACT requirement. This finding started an 18-
month sanctions clock, as well as a 24 month Federal Implementation
Plan (FIP) clock. On April 30, 2008, the RI DEM submitted a SIP
revision which included an attainment demonstration, a RACT
demonstration, and a reasonable further progress plan for the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. EPA determined the SIP revision complete on May 30, 2008,
stopping the 18-month sanctions clock.

II. Rhode Island's SIP Revision

    On October 27, 2009, the Rhode Island Department of Environmental
Management (DEM) submitted a SIP revision to EPA. This SIP revision
included Rhode Island's new Air Pollution Control (APC) Regulation No.
44, ``Control of Volatile Organic Compounds from Adhesives and
Sealants.'' Then, on March 25, 2015, Rhode Island DEM submitted a SIP
revision containing a minor revision to APC Regulation No. 44 to
address a typographical error in the regulation.

III. EPA's Evaluation of Rhode Island's SIP Revision

    Rhode Island's APC Regulation No. 44, ``Control of Volatile Organic
Compounds from Adhesives and Sealants,'' is based on the OTC Model Rule
for Adhesives and Sealants. APC Regulation No. 44 includes all of the
approaches to controlling VOC emissions found in EPA's CTG for
Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives (EPA 453/R-08-005, September 2008):
VOC content limits for adhesives and cleaning solvents; work practices;
record keeping; air pollution control equipment requirements; surface
preparation requirements; and spray gun cleaning requirements. Rhode
Island's rule is also more comprehensive than the CTG, since it
establishes VOC content limits for sealants and sealant primers (in
addition to adhesives as covered by the CTG), regulates sellers and
manufacturers, not just appliers, of regulated adhesives, adhesive
primers and sealants, and contains a VOC composite vapor pressure limit
for cleaning materials. The exemptions of APC Regulation No. 44 are
similar to those recommended in the CTG. While

there are minor differences in the named adhesive categories (and
emission limits) included in the CTG and APC Regulation No. 44, those
differences are inconsequential compared to the broader applicability
of APC Regulation No. 44 noted above.
    The March 25, 2015, SIP revision corrects the header on page 1 to
identify the regulation as ``No. 44'' and not ``No. 33.''

IV. Final Action

    EPA is approving, and incorporating into the Rhode Island SIP,
Rhode Island's APC Regulation No. 44, ``Control of Volatile Organic
Compounds from Adhesives and Sealants.''
    The EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because
the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates
no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this
Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document
that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should
relevant adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective
September 21, 2015 without further notice unless the Agency receives
relevant adverse comments by August 24, 2015.
    If the EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a notice
withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will
not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in
a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not
institute a second comment period on the proposed rule. All parties
interested in commenting on the proposed rule should do so at this
time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this
rule will be effective on September 21, 2015 and no further action will
be taken on the proposed rule. Please note that if EPA receives adverse
comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that
provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt
as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an
adverse comment.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the
[State Agency Regulations] described in the amendments to 40 CFR part
52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these
documents generally available electronically through
www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office
(see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation
land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated
that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the
rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 21, 2015. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final
rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel
notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed
rules section of this Federal Register, rather than file an immediate
petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can
withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed
rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: June 18, 2015.
H. Curtis Spalding,
Regional Administrator, EPA New England.

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

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart OO--Rhode Island

0
2. In Sec.  52.2070, the table in paragraph (c), EPA-Approved Rhode
Island Regulations, is amended by adding an entry in numerical order
for Air Pollution Control Regulation 44 to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2070  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                                          EPA-Approved Rhode Island Regulations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                State effective
                 State citation                              Title/subject                   date              EPA approval date          Explanations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
Air Pollution Control Regulation 44.............  Control of Volatile Organic                06/04/2009                    07/23/2015
                                                   Compounds from Adhesives and                              [Insert Federal Register
                                                   Sealants.                                                                citation]

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2015-17852 Filed 7-22-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: July 31, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 146)]
[Notices]
[Page 41737]
[DOCID:fr31jy07-70]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12606-000; Project No. 2545-091]

Post Falls Hydroelectric Project Spokane River Developments
Project, Avista Corporation Spokane, WA; Notice of Availability of the
Final Enivironmental Impact Statement for the Spokane River
Developments and Post Falls Hydroelectric Projects

July 20, 2007.
    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC)
regulations contained in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) (18 CFR
part 380 [FERC Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897]) the Office of Energy
Projects staff (staff) reviewed the applications for New Major Licenses
for the Spokane River Hydroelectric Project and Post Falls Project.
Staff prepared a final environmental impact statement (FEIS) for the
projects which are located on the Spokane River, Washington.
    The FEIS contains staff's analysis of the potential environmental
effects of the projects and concludes that licensing the projects, with
staff's recommended measures, would not constitute a major federal
action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
Copies of the FEIS have been sent to federal, state, and local
agencies; public interest groups; and individuals on the Commission's
mailing list.
    A copy of the FEIS is available for review at the Commission's
Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at:
http://www.ferc.gov using the ``e-Library'' link. Enter the docket

number (P-2545) or (P-12606), to access the document. For assistance,
contact FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free
at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    For further information, please contact: John Blair at (202) 502-
6092 or at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-14737 Filed 7-30-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P