[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 147 (Wednesday, August 2, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36017-36020]
[FR Doc No: 2017-16265]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-81245; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2017-073]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend Options Market Rules at Chapter IV, Section 6

July 28, 2017.
    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 July 27, 2017, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend The NASDAQ Options Market LLC
(``NOM'') Rules at Chapter IV, Section 6, entitled ``Series of Options
Contracts Open for Trading.''
    The text of the proposed rule change is set forth below. Proposed
new language is italicized; deleted text is in brackets.
* * * * *

NASDAQ Stock Market Rules

* * * * *
Options Rules
* * * * *
Chapter IV Securities Traded on NOM
* * * * *
Sec. 6 Series of Options Contracts Open for Trading
    (a)-(g) No change.
Supplementary Material to Section 6
.01
    (a) and (b) No change.
    (c) Notwithstanding any other provision regarding the interval of
strike prices of series of options on Exchange-Traded Fund Shares in
this rule, the interval of strike prices on SPDR[supreg] S&P
500[supreg] ETF (``SPY''), iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (``IVV''), and the
SPDR[supreg] Dow Jones[supreg] Industrial Average ETF (``DIA'') options
will be $1 or greater.
    (d)-(f) No change.
    .02-.09 No change.
* * * * *

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 aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend NOM Rules at Chapter IV, Section 6,
entitled ``Series of Options Contracts Open for Trading'' by modifying
the strike setting regime for the iShares Core S&P 500 ETF (``IVV'')
options. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to modify the interval
setting regime for IVV options to allow $1 strike price intervals above
$200.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would make IVV
options easier for investors and traders to use and more tailored to
their investment needs. Additionally, the interval setting regime the
Exchange proposes to apply to IVV options is currently applied to
options on units of the Standard & Poor's Depository

Receipts Trust (``SPY''),\3\ which is an exchange-traded fund (``ETF'')
that is identical in all material respects to the IVV ETF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Supplementary Material .01(c) to Chapter IV, Section 6.
See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80913 (June 13, 2017),
82 FR 27907 (June 19, 2017) (SR-CBOE-2017-048) (Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related to Rule
5.5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SPY and IVV ETFs are identical in all material respects. The
SPY and IVV ETFs are designed to roughly track the performance of the
S&P 500 Index with the price of SPY and IVV designed to roughly
approximate 1/10th of the price of the S&P 500 Index. Accordingly, SPY
and IVV strike prices--having a multiplier of $100--reflect a value
roughly equal to 1/10th of the value of the S&P 500 Index. For example,
if the S&P 500 Index is at 1972.56, SPY and IVV options might have a
value of approximately 197.26 with a notional value of $19,726. In
general, SPY and IVV options provide retail investors and traders with
the benefit of trading the broad market in a manageably sized contract.
As options with an ETP underlying, SPY and IVV options are listed in
the same manner as equity options under the Rules.
    However, pursuant to current Supplementary Material .01 to Chapter
IV, Section 6, the interval between strike prices in series of options
on ETPs, including IVV options will be $1 or greater where the strike
price is $200 or less and $5.00 or greater where the strike price is
greater than $200. In addition, pursuant to Supplementary Material
.07(e) to Chapter IV, Section 6,

    The interval between strike prices on Short Term Option Series
may be (i) $0.50 or greater where the strike price is less than
$100, and $1 or greater where the strike price is between $100 and
$150 for all classes that participate in the Short Term Options
Series Program; (ii) $0.50 for classes that trade in one dollar
increments in Related non-Short Term Options and that participate in
the Short Term Option Series Program; or (iii) $2.50 or greater
where the strike price is above $150. Related non-Short Term Option
series shall be opened during the month prior to expiration of such
Related non-Short Term Option series in the same manner as permitted
in Supplementary Material to Section 6 at .07 and in the same strike
price intervals that are permitted in Supplementary Material to
Section 6 at .07.

    The Exchange's proposal seeks to narrow the strike price intervals
to $1 for IVV options above $200, in effect matching the strike setting
regime for strike intervals in IVV options below $200 and matching the
strike setting regime applied to SPY options.
    Currently, the S&P 500 Index is above 2000. The S&P 500 Index is
widely regarded as the best single gauge of large cap U.S. equities and
is widely quoted as an indicator of stock prices and investor
confidence in the securities market. As a result, individual investors
often use S&P 500 Index-related products to diversify their portfolios
and benefit from market trends. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that
offering a wide range of S&P 500 Index-based options affords traders
and investors important hedging and trading opportunities. The Exchange
believes that not having the proposed $1 strike price intervals above
$200 in IVV significantly constricts investors' hedging and trading
possibilities.
    The Exchange proposes to amend Supplementary Material .01(c) of
Chapter IV, Section 6 to allow IVV options to trade in $1 increments
above a strike price of $200. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to
amend Supplementary Material .01(c) of Chapter IV, Section 6 to state
that notwithstanding other provisions limiting the ability of the
Exchange to list $1 increment strike prices on equity and ETF options
above $200, the interval between strike prices of series of options on
Units of IVV will be $1 or greater. The Exchange believes that by
having smaller strike intervals in IVV, investors would have more
efficient hedging and trading opportunities due to the lower $1
interval ascension. The proposed $1 intervals, particularly above the
$200 strike price, will result in having at-the-money series based upon
the underlying IVV moving less than 1%.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed strike setting regime is in
line with the slower movements of broad-based indices. Furthermore, the
proposed $1 intervals would allow option trading strategies (such as,
for example, risk reduction/hedging strategies using IVV weekly
options), to remain viable. Considering the fact that $1 intervals
already exist below the $200 price point and that IVV is above the $200
level, the Exchange believes that continuing to maintain the artificial
$200 level (above which intervals increase by $5), would have a
negative effect on investing, trading and hedging opportunities, and
volume.
    The Exchange believes that the investing, trading, and hedging
opportunities available with IVV options far outweighs any potential
negative impact of allowing IVV options to trade in more finely
tailored intervals above the $200 price point. The proposed strike
setting regime would permit strikes to be set to more closely reflect
values in the underlying S&P 500 Index and allow investors and traders
to roll open positions from a lower strike to a higher strike in
conjunction with the price movement of the underlying.
    Pursuant to Chapter IV, Section 6, where the next higher available
series would be $5 away above a $200 strike price, the ability to roll
such positions is effectively negated. Accordingly, to move a position
from a $200 strike to a $205 strike pursuant to the current rule, an
investor would need for the underlying product to move 2.5%, and would
not be able to execute a roll up until such a large movement occurred.
With the proposed rule change, however, the investor would be in a
significantly safer position of being able to roll his open options
position from a $200 to a $201 strike price, which is only a 0.5% move
for the underlying.
    The proposed rule change will allow the Exchange to better respond
to customer demand for IVV strike prices more precisely aligned with
current S&P 500 Index values. The Exchange believes that the proposed
rule change, like the other strike price programs currently offered by
the Exchange, will benefit investors by providing investors the
flexibility to more closely tailor their investment and hedging
decisions using IVV options. By allowing series of IVV options to be
listed in $1 intervals between strike prices over $200, the proposal
will moderately augment the potential total number of options series
available on the Exchange. However, the Exchange believes it and the
Options Price Reporting Authority (``OPRA'') have the necessary systems
capacity to handle any potential additional traffic associated with
this proposed rule change. The Exchange also believes that Participants
will not have a capacity issue due to the proposed rule change.
    In addition, the Exchange represents that it does not believe that
this expansion will cause fragmentation of liquidity. In addition, the
interval setting regime the Exchange proposes to apply to IVV options
is currently applied to options on SPY,\4\ which is an ETF that is
identical in all material respects to the IVV ETF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See note 4 above [sic].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\5\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\6\ in particular.\7\ Specifically, the Exchange
believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Section

6(b)(5) \8\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be designed to
prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling,
processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions
in securities, 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. Additionally, the Exchange
believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Section
6(b)(5) \9\ requirement that the rules of an exchange not be designed
to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or
dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \9\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the proposed rule change will allow investors to
more easily use IVV options. Moreover, the proposed rule change would
allow investors to better trade and hedge positions in IVV options
where the strike price is greater than $200, and ensure that IVV
options investors are not at a disadvantage simply because of the
strike price.
    The Exchange also believes the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b)(1) of the Act, which provides that the Exchange be
organized and have the capacity to be able to carry out the purposes of
the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder, and the rules of the
Exchange. The rule change proposal allows the Exchange to respond to
customer demand to allow IVV options to trade in $1 intervals above a
$200 strike price. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule
would create additional capacity issues or affect market functionality.
    As noted above, ETF options trade in wider $5 intervals above a
$200 strike price, whereas options at or below a $200 strike price
trade in $1 intervals. This creates a situation where contracts on the
same option class effectively may not be able to execute certain
strategies such as, for example, rolling to a higher strike price,
simply because of the arbitrary $200 strike price above which options
intervals increase by $5. This proposal remedies the situation by
establishing an exception to the current ETF interval regime for IVV
options to allow such options to trade in $1 or greater intervals at
all strike prices.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change, like other
strike price programs currently offered by the Exchange, will benefit
investors by giving them increased flexibility to more closely tailor
their investment and hedging decisions. Moreover, the proposed rule
change is consistent with a prior rule change on NASDAQ PHLX LLC.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Securities and Exchange Act Release 34-72664 (July 24,
2014), 79 FR 44231 (July 30, 2014) (Notice of Filing of Proposed
Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1, Relating to SPY and DIA
Options) (SR-Phlx-2014-046).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to the impact of this proposal on system capacity, the
Exchange believes it and OPRA have the necessary systems capacity to
handle any potential additional traffic associated with this proposed
rule change. The Exchange believes that its members will not have a
capacity issue as a result of this proposal.
    In addition, the interval setting regime the Exchange proposes to
apply to IVV options is currently applied to options on SPY,\11\ which
is an ETF that is identical in all material respects to the IVV ETF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See note 4 above [sic].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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. Rather, the Exchange believes
that the proposed rule change will result in additional investment
options and opportunities to achieve the investment and trading
objectives of market participants seeking efficient trading and hedging
vehicles, to the benefit of investors, market participants, and the
marketplace in general. Specifically, the Exchange believes that IVV
options investors and traders will significantly benefit from the
availability of finer strike price intervals above a $200 price point.
In addition, the interval setting regime the Exchange proposes to apply
to IVV options is currently applied to options on SPY,\12\ which is an
ETF that is identical in all material respects to the IVV ETF. Thus,
applying the same strike setting regime to SPY and IVV options will
help level the playing field for options on similar, competing ETFs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See note 4 above [sic].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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) \13\ of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \14\
thereunder. Because the proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with
the protection of investors and the public interest, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \16\ normally
does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of the
filing. However, pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii),\17\ 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 because this
proposal permits listing IVV options in a manner permitted by the
Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated,\18\ and will provide
investors with an alternative venue for trading IVV options. The
Commission believes that waiver of the operative delay is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. Therefore,
the Commission hereby waives the operative delay and designates the
proposed rule change operative upon filing.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \18\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80913 (June 13,
2017), 82 FR 27907 (June 19, 2017) (SR-CBOE-2017-048).
    \19\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute
proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B) \20\ of the Act to determine
whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2017-073 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2017-073. 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 also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2017-073, and should
be submitted on or before August 23, 2017.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-16265 Filed 8-1-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 174 (Thursday, September 8, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 55572-55577]
[FR Doc No: 2011-22666]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2010-0816-201106; FRL-9458-1]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Georgia:
Prevention of Significant Deterioration; Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule
and Fine Particulate Matter Revision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to approve portions of a revision
to the State Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted by the State of
Georgia, through the Georgia Department of Natural Resources'
Environmental Protection Division (EPD), to EPA on September 30, 2010,
for parallel processing. Georgia submitted the final version of this
SIP revision on January 13, 2011. The portions of the SIP revision
approved by this action incorporate two updates to Georgia's air
quality regulations under Georgia's New Source Review (NSR) Prevention
of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program. First, the SIP revision
establishes appropriate emission thresholds for determining which new
stationary sources and modification projects become subject to
Georgia's PSD permitting requirements for its greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions. Second, the SIP revision incorporates provisions for
implementing the PSD program for the fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). EPA
is approving Georgia's January 13, 2011, SIP revision because the
Agency has made the determination that this SIP revision is in
accordance with the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and EPA regulations,
including those relating to PSD permitting for GHGs and the
PM2.5 NAAQS. Additionally, EPA is responding to adverse
comments received on EPA's November 29, 2010, proposed approval of
Georgia's September 30, 2010, draft SIP revision.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule will be effective October 11, 2011.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2010-0816. All documents in the docket
are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov web site. Although listed
in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e.,
Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section for further information. The Regional Office's official hours
of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal
holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information regarding the Georgia
SIP, contact Ms. Twunjala Bradley, Regulatory Development Section, Air
Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. Bradley's telephone number is (404)
562-9352; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For information
regarding the Tailoring Rule and the NSR PM2.5 Rule, contact
Ms. Heather Abrams, Air Permits Section, at the same address above. Ms.
Abrams' telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For information regarding the PM2.5
NAAQS, contact Mr. Joel Huey, Regulatory Development Section, at the
same address above. Mr. Huey's telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>;  e-
mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What is the background for this action?
II. What is EPA's response to comments received on this action?
III. What is the effect of this final action?
IV. Final Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is the background for this action?

    EPA has recently undertaken a series of actions pertaining to the
regulation of GHGs that, although for the most part distinct from one
another, establish the overall framework for today's final action on
the Georgia SIP. Four of these actions include, as they are commonly
called, the ``Endangerment Finding'' and ``Cause or Contribute
Finding,'' which EPA issued in a single final action,\1\ the ``Johnson
Memo Reconsideration,'' \2\ the ``Light-Duty Vehicle Rule,'' \3\ and
the ``Tailoring Rule.'' \4\ Taken together and in conjunction with the
CAA, these actions established regulatory requirements for GHGs emitted
from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines; determined that
such regulations, when they took effect on January 2, 2011, subjected
GHGs emitted from stationary sources to PSD requirements; and limited
the applicability of PSD requirements to GHG sources on a phased-in
basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for
Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.'' 74 FR
66496 (December 15, 2009).
    \2\ ``Interpretation of Regulations that Determine Pollutants
Covered by Clean Air Act Permitting Programs.'' 75 FR 17004 (April
2, 2010).
    \3\ ``Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and
Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards; Final Rule.'' 75 FR 25324
(May 7, 2010).
    \4\ ``Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V
Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule; Final Rule.'' 75 FR 31514 (June 3,
2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to the PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA finalized a rule on
May 16, 2008, including changes to the NSR program (hereafter referred
to as the ``2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule''). See 73 FR 28321. The
2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule revised the NSR program requirements to
establish the framework for implementing preconstruction permit review
for the PM2.5 NAAQS in both attainment and nonattainment
areas. States were required to provide SIP submissions to address the
requirements for the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule by May 16, 2011.
    On September 30, 2010,\5\ in response to the Tailoring Rule,
earlier GHG-related EPA rules and the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule,
EPD submitted a draft revision to EPA for approval into the Georgia SIP
to: (1) Establish appropriate emission thresholds for determining which
new or modified stationary sources become subject to Georgia's PSD
permitting requirements for GHG emissions; and (2) incorporate
provisions for implementing the PSD program for the PM2.5
NAAQS. Subsequently, on November 29, 2010, EPA published a proposed
rulemaking to approve portions of Georgia's September 30, 2010, SIP
revision under parallel processing. See 75 FR 73017. Specifically, EPA
proposed to approve

the portions of Georgia's September 30, 2010, draft SIP revision that
incorporate by reference the thresholds for GHG permitting
applicability at 40 CFR 52.21 (as amended June 3, 2010, and effective
August 2, 2010), into Georgia's SIP (391-3-1-.02(7)--Prevention of
Significant Deterioration of Air Quality),\6\ and that incorporate the
federal requirements related to the 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule.
Detailed background information and EPA's rationale for the proposed
approval are provided in EPA's November 29, 2010, Federal Register
notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ With respect to the PM2.5 NAAQS, Georgia's
January 13, 2011, SIP revision only addresses PSD requirements.
Regarding the nonattainment NSR provisions for the PM2.5
NAAQS, EPA is awaiting final SIP submittal from Georgia for the
nonattainment NSR PM2.5 provisions.
    \6\ Georgia's submittal also includes revised title V operating
permit provisions, which are not included in the SIP. As such, EPA
is not taking final action to approve Georgia's update to its title
V regulations in this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's November 29, 2010, proposed approval was contingent upon
Georgia providing a final SIP revision that was substantively the same
as the revision proposed for approval by EPA in the November 29, 2010,
proposed rulemaking. See 75 FR 73017. Georgia provided its final SIP
revision on January 13, 2011. There were no differences between
Georgia's September 30, 2010, draft SIP revision, and the January 13,
2011, final SIP revision.
    On December 30, 2010, EPA published a final rule narrowing its
previous approval of PSD programs as applicable to GHG-emitting sources
in SIPs for 24 states, including Georgia.\7\ See 75 FR 82536 (PSD
Narrowing Rule). Specifically, in the PSD Narrowing Rule, EPA withdrew
its previous approval of Georgia's SIP to the extent it applied PSD to
GHG-emitting sources below the thresholds in the Tailoring Rule. The
effect of the PSD Narrowing Rule on the approved Georgia SIP was to
establish that new and modified sources are subject to PSD permitting
requirements for their GHG emissions only if they emit GHGs at or above
the Tailoring Rule's emission thresholds. As result of today's action
approving Georgia's incorporation of the appropriate GHG permitting
thresholds into its SIP, paragraph (b) in 40 CFR 52.572, as included in
EPA's Narrowing Rule, is no longer necessary. Thus, today's action also
amends 40 CFR 52.572 to remove this unnecessary regulatory language.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ ``Limitation of Approval of Prevention of Significant
Deterioration Provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources
in State Implementation Plans.'' 75 FR 82536 (December 30, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to changes to address PSD permitting requirements for
GHGs and PM2.5 discussed above, Georgia's January 13, 2011,
SIP revision incorporated by reference provisions in 40 CFR 52.21 that:
(1) Exclude facilities that produce ethanol through a natural
fermentation process from the definition of ``chemical process plants''
in the major NSR source permitting program as provided by the Ethanol
Rule (72 FR 24060, May 1, 2007), and (2) implement EPA's Fugitive
Emissions Rule (73 FR 77882, December 19, 2008).\8\ The SIP revision
also includes a provision (at 391-3-1-.02(7)(a)(iv)) that would
automatically rescind portions of Georgia's SIP in the wake of certain
court decisions or other events (the automatic rescission clause). At
this time, EPA is not taking final action to approve these three
additional provisions into the Georgia SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ On March 31, 2010, EPA stayed the Fugitive Emissions Rule
(73 FR 77882) for 18 months to October 3, 2011, to allow the Agency
time to propose, take comment and issue a final action regarding the
inclusion of fugitive emissions in NSR applicability determinations.
The March 31, 2010, stay was established as a result of EPA granting
Natural Resource Defense Council's petition for reconsideration on
the original Fugitive Emissions Rule. See 73 FR 77882. On March 30,
2011 (76 FR 17548), EPA proposed an interim rule that superseded the
March 31, 2010, stay to clarify and extend the stay of the Fugitive
Emission Rule until EPA completes its reconsideration. The interim
rule simply reverts the CFR text back to the language that existed
prior to the Fugitive Emissions Rule changes in the December 19,
2008 rulemaking. EPA plans to issue a final rule approving the
interim rule. Until the interim rule is final, the Fugitive Emission
Rule is still currently stayed through October 3, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. What is EPA's response to comments received on this action?

    EPA received two sets of adverse comments on the November 29, 2010,
proposed rulemaking to approve revisions to Georgia's SIP. One set of
comments, provided by the Air Permitting Forum, raised concerns
regarding the SIP revisions relating to PSD permitting for GHGs. The
other set of comments, provided by Oglethorpe Power Corporation,
expressed concern over EPA not proposing action on the automatic
rescission clause contained in Georgia's September 30, 2010, draft SIP
revision. A full set of the comments provided by both Oglethorpe Power
Corporation and Air Permitting Forum (hereinafter referred to as the
``Commenter'') is provided in the docket for today's final action. The
comments can be accessed at http://www.regulations.gov using Docket ID
No.: EPA-R04-OAR-2010-0816. A summary of the adverse comments and EPA's
responses are provided below.
    Generally, the adverse comments fall into four categories. First,
one Commenter states that PSD requirements cannot be triggered by GHGs.
Second, a Commenter expresses concerns regarding a footnote in the
November 29, 2010, proposal describing EPA's previously announced
intention to narrow its prior approval of some SIPs to ensure that
sources with GHG emissions that are less than the Tailoring Rule's
thresholds will not be obligated under federal law to obtain PSD
permits prior to a SIP revision incorporating those thresholds. The
Commenter states that the planned SIP approval narrowing action ``is
illegal.'' Third, a Commenter states that EPA has failed to meet
applicable statutory and executive order review requirements. Lastly,
both Commenters express concern over EPA not proposing action in the
November 29, 2010, rulemaking on the automatic rescission clause
(labeled the ``severability provision'' by one Commenter, and the
``sunsetting clause'' by the other Commenter) included in Georgia's
September 30, 2010, draft SIP revision. EPA's response to these four
categories of comments is provided below.
    Comment 1: The Commenter asserts that PSD requirements cannot be
triggered by GHGs. In its letter, the Commenter reiterates EPA's
statement that without the Tailoring Rule thresholds, PSD will apply as
of January 2, 2011, to all stationary sources that emit or have the
potential to emit, depending on the source category, either 100 or 250
tons of GHGs per year. The Commenter also reiterates EPA's statement
that beginning January 2, 2011, a source owner proposing to construct
any new major source that emits at or higher than the GHG applicability
levels, or to modify any existing major source in a way that would
increase GHG emissions, would need to obtain a PSD permit that
addresses these emissions before construction could begin. In raising
concerns with the two aforementioned statements, the Commenter states:
``No area in the State of Georgia has been designated attainment or
unclassifiable for greenhouse gases (GHGs), as there is no national
ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for GHGs. Therefore, GHGs cannot
trigger PSD permitting.'' The Commenter notes that it made this
argument in detail in comments submitted to EPA on the Tailoring Rule
and other related GHG rulemakings. The Commenter attached those
previously submitted comments to its comments on the proposed
rulemaking related to today's action. Finally, the Commenter states
that ``EPA should immediately provide notice that it is now
interpreting the Act not to require that GHGs trigger PSD and allow
Georgia to

rescind that portion of its rules that would allow GHGs to trigger
PSD.''
    Response 1: EPA established the requirement that PSD applies to all
pollutants newly subject to regulation, including non-NAAQS pollutants
such as GHGs, in earlier national rulemakings concerning the PSD
program, and EPA has not re-opened that issue in today's rulemaking. In
an August 7, 1980, rulemaking at 45 FR 52676, 45 FR 52710-52712, and 45
FR 52735, EPA stated that a ``major stationary source'' was one which
emitted ``any air pollutant subject to regulation under the Act'' at or
above the specified numerical thresholds; and defined a ``major
modification,'' in general, as a physical or operational change that
increased emissions of ``any pollutant subject to regulation under the
Act'' by more than an amount that EPA variously termed as de minimis or
significant. In addition, EPA's 2002 NSR Reform rules added to the PSD
regulations the new definition of ``regulated NSR pollutant''
(currently codified at 40 CFR 52.21(b)(50) and 40 CFR 51.166(a)(49))
and noted that EPA added this term based on a request from a commenter
to ``clarify which pollutants are covered under the PSD program.''
Further, EPA explained that in addition to criteria pollutants for
which a NAAQS has been established, ``[t]he PSD program applies
automatically to newly regulated NSR pollutants, which would include
final promulgation of an NSPS [new source performance standard]
applicable to a previously unregulated pollutant.'' See 67 FR 80186,
80240 and 80264 (December 31, 2002). Among other things, the definition
of ``regulated NSR pollutant'' includes ``[a]ny pollutant that
otherwise is subject to regulation under the Act.'' See 40 CFR
52.21(b)(50)(d)(iv); 40 CFR 51.166(a)(49)(iv).
    EPA disagrees with the Commenter's underlying premise that PSD
requirements were not triggered for GHGs when GHGs became subject to
regulation on January 2, 2011. This has been well established and
discussed in connection with prior EPA actions, including, most
recently, the Johnson Reconsideration and the Tailoring Rule. In
addition, EPA's November 29, 2010, proposed rulemaking provides the
general basis for the Agency's rationale that GHGs, while not a NAAQS
pollutant, can trigger PSD permitting requirements. The November 29,
2010, action also refers the reader to the preamble of the Tailoring
Rule for further information on this rationale. In that rulemaking, EPA
addressed at length the comment that PSD can be triggered only by
pollutants subject to the NAAQS, and concluded such an interpretation
of the Act would contravene Congress' unambiguous intent. See 75 FR
31560-31562. Further discussion of EPA's rationale for concluding that
PSD requirements are triggered by non-NAAQS pollutants such as GHGs
appears in the Tailoring Rule Response-to-Comments document
(``Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V GHG Tailoring
Rule: EPA's Response to Public Comments''), pp. 34-41; and in EPA's
response to motions for a stay filed in the litigation concerning those
rules (``EPA's Response to Motions for Stay,'' Coalition for
Responsible Regulation v. EPA, D.C. Cir. No. 09-1322 (and consolidated
cases)), at pp. 47-59, and are incorporated by reference here. These
documents have been placed in the docket for today's action and can be
accessed at http://www.regulations.gov using Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-
2010-0816.
    Comment 2: The Commenter expresses concerns regarding a footnote in
which EPA describes its previously announced intention to narrow its
prior approval of some SIPs. In the footnote, EPA explained that such
narrowing would ensure that sources with GHG emissions that are less
than the Tailoring Rule's thresholds are not obligated under federal
law to obtain PSD permits during any gap between the effective date of
GHG-permitting requirements (January 2, 2011) and the date that a SIP
is revised to incorporate the Tailoring Rule thresholds. The Commenter
asserts that EPA's narrowing of its prior SIP approvals ``is illegal.''
Further, the Commenter states that ``EPA has not proposed to narrow
Georgia's SIP approval here and any such proposal must be explicit and
address the action specifically made with respect to Georgia. EPA
cannot sidestep these important procedural requirements.''
    Response 2: While EPA does not agree with the Commenter's assertion
that the narrowing approach discussed in EPA's Tailoring Rule is
illegal, the narrowing approach was not the subject of EPA's November
29, 2010, proposed rulemaking to approve Georgia's September 30, 2010,
SIP revision. Rather, the narrowing approach was the subject of a
separate rulemaking, which was considered and finalized in the PSD
Narrowing Rule in an action separate from today's rulemaking. See 75 FR
82536 (December 30, 2010). In today's final action, EPA is acting to
approve a SIP revision submitted by Georgia, and is not otherwise
narrowing its approval of previously approved provisions in the Georgia
SIP. Accordingly, the legality of the narrowing approach is not at
issue in today's rulemaking.
    Comment 3: The Commenter states that EPA has failed to meet
applicable statutory and executive order review requirements.
Specifically, the Commenter refers to the statutory and executive
orders for the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA), Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, and Executive Order 13132
(Federalism). Additionally, the Commenter mentions that EPA has never
analyzed the costs and benefits associated with triggering PSD for
stationary sources in Georgia, much less nationwide.
    Response 3: EPA disagrees with the Commenter's statement that EPA
has failed to meet applicable statutory and executive order review
requirements. As stated in EPA's proposed approval of Georgia's
September 30, 2010, draft SIP revision, today's action merely approves
state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly,
EPA approval, in and of itself, does not impose any new information
collection burden, as defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(b) and (c), that would
require additional review under the Paperwork Reduction Act. In
addition, because today's action simply approves existing state law, it
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities beyond the impact of existing state law requirements.
Thus, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required under the RFA.
Accordingly, this rule is appropriately certified under section 605(b)
of the RFA. Moreover, as this action 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
mandates or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, such
that it would be subject to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. Finally,
this action does not have federalism implications that would make
Executive Order 13132 applicable because it 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 CAA.
    In sum, today's rule is a routine approval of a SIP revision,
approving state law, and does not impose any requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. To the extent these comments are directed more
generally to the application of the statutory and executive order
reviews to the required regulation of GHGs under PSD

programs, EPA provided an extensive response to similar comments in
promulgating the Tailoring Rule. EPA refers the Commenter to the
sections in the Tailoring Rule entitled ``VII. Comments on Statutory
and Executive Order Reviews,'' 75 FR 31601-31603, and ``VI. What are
the economic impacts of the final rule?'' 75 FR 31595-31601. EPA also
notes that today's action does not in-and-of itself trigger the
regulation of GHGs. To the contrary, by helping to clarify that higher
PSD applicability thresholds for GHGs apply than would otherwise be in
effect under the Act, this rulemaking, as well as EPA's Tailoring Rule,
is part of the effort to provide relief to smaller GHG-emitting sources
that would otherwise be subject to PSD permitting requirements for
their GHG emissions.
    Comment 4: The Commenters object to EPA not proposing to take
action (in the November 29, 2010, proposed rulemaking) on the automatic
rescission clause included in Georgia's September 30, 2010, draft SIP
revision. One Commenter states: ``EPA refuses to take action on this
provision, proposing neither approval nor disapproval of the
severability provision in the Georgia SIP.'' This Commenter further
states that, at a minimum, EPA is required, pursuant to section
110(k)(2) of the CAA, to take action within 12 months after the State's
submission of a complete SIP revision. The other Commenter asserts that
EPA cannot take action on any portion of the Georgia SIP revision
without taking action on the automatic rescission clause because, in
the Commenter's opinion, the rescission clause is not ``separable.''
The Commenter goes on to state that EPA is changing the intended scope
of the State's regulations. Further, the Commenter states: ``EPA's
failure to `act' on this provision would have the effect of codifying a
provision more stringent than what Georgia submitted to EPA because it
would effectively make the tailoring thresholds permanent until EPA
revises the SIP in the future. EPA must follow Section 110(k)(3) and
its own guidance, and approve the submitted provisions as a whole.''
    Response 4: Contrary to the comments described above, EPA is not
refusing to take action on the automatic rescission clause. Rather, EPA
is in the process of evaluating the approvability of the automatic
rescission clause included in Georgia's January 13, 2011, final SIP
revision, and will continue to work with the State to resolve
outstanding concerns and reach a final decision. As noted by one
Commenter, section 110(k)(3) of the Act provides EPA with 12 months to
act on a SIP revision once the State's submission is complete, and that
time period has not yet expired with respect to Georgia's automatic
rescission clause.
    One Commenter cites the Seventh Circuit finding in Bethlehem Steel
v. Gorsuch, 742 F.2d 1028 (7th Cir. 1984) that EPA may not act
separately on a portion of a SIP revision submittal that is not
separable from the rest, and the commenter defines ``separable'' as
meaning that approving only a portion of the SIP revision ``should not
result in the approved portions of the SIP submission being more
stringent than the State would have anticipated.'' However, in an e-
mail dated May 10, 2011, Georgia agreed to allow EPA to take action on
the majority of this SIP revision now, and reserve action on the
automatic rescission clause for a later date. The May 10, 2011, e-mail
to EPA Region 4 Air Planning Branch, Regulatory Development Section
Chief Lynorae Benjamin from Georgia EPD Air Protection Branch Chief
James Capp states: ``Georgia would like you to move forward with final
approval for the GHG Rule and not wait on the resolution for the
rescission clause. However, we would like to continue working with you
on obtaining approval of the rescission clause.'' See Docket ID No.
EPA-R04-OAR-2010-0816. Given Georgia's agreement to EPA's proposed
course of action, EPA is not acting in a way that makes its approval
more stringent than the state would anticipate and the 7th Circuit's
analysis in Bethlehem Steel is not implicated. Moreover, regardless of
whether EPA eventually approves the automatic rescission clause into
Georgia's SIP, if the federal GHG regulations are eliminated for some
reason, Georgia will be able to revise its SIP accordingly using the
SIP revision procedures set forth in section 110 of the CAA. EPA notes
that it has not yet decided on the approvability of the rescission
clause that the State submitted with its January 13, 2011 SIP revision,
but will continue to work with the State in consideration of a final
course of action.

III. What is the effect of this final action?

    Final approval of Georgia's January 13, 2011, SIP revision will
incorporate the GHG emission thresholds for PSD applicability set forth
in EPA's Tailoring Rule (75 FR 31514, June 3, 2010) and adopted as
state law, confirming that smaller GHG sources emitting less than these
thresholds will not be subject to PSD permitting requirements under the
approved Georgia SIP. Pursuant to section 110 of the CAA, EPA is
approving the changes made in Georgia's January 13, 2011, SIP revision
into Georgia's SIP, with the exception of certain provisions noted
above.
    Georgia's January 13, 2011, revision updates its existing
incorporation by reference of the federal NSR program to include the
relevant federal Tailoring Rule provisions set forth at 40 CFR 52.21
into the Georgia SIP at 391-3-1-.02(7)--Prevention of Significant
Deterioration of Air Quality.\9\ EPA has determined that the portions
of Georgia's January 13, 2011, SIP revision, approved by today's action
are consistent with EPA's regulations, including the Tailoring Rule.
Furthermore, EPA has determined that these portions of the January 13,
2011, revision to Georgia's SIP are consistent with section 110 of the
CAA. See, e.g., Tailoring Rule, at 75 FR 31561.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Georgia's submittal also relates to title V provisions,
which are not included in the SIP. As such, EPA is not taking action
to approve Georgia's update to its title V regulations in this
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, Georgia's January 13, 2011, SIP revision incorporates
by reference the provisions at 40 CFR 52.21 as amended by the
promulgation of the NSR PM2.5 Rule for PSD.\10\ EPA has
determined that these portions of Georgia's January 13, 2011, SIP
revision approved by today's action are consistent with EPA's
regulations, including the NSR PM2.5 Rule for PSD, and with
section 110 of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Georgia's January 13, 2011, SIP revision excludes adoption
of the relevant grandfathering provision at 40 CFR 52.21(i)(1)(ix).
On May 18, 2011, (76 FR 28646) EPA took final action to repeal the
PM2.5 grandfathering provision at 40 CFR 52.21(i)(1)(xi)
which ends the use of the 1997 PM10 Surrogate Policy for
PSD permits under the federal PSD program at 40 CFR 52.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Final Action

    EPA is taking final action to approve, with certain exceptions,
Georgia's January 13, 2011, SIP revision, which updates Georgia's air
quality regulations, 391-3-1-.02(7)--Prevention of Significant
Deterioration of Air Quality, to reflect changes in federal
requirements. Specifically, Georgia's January 13, 2011, SIP revision
incorporates appropriate emissions thresholds for determining PSD
applicability with respect to new or modified GHG-emitting sources in
accordance with EPA's Tailoring Rule, and incorporates those thresholds
in the form in which they are stated in state law. In addition, the SIP
revision incorporates provisions for implementing the PSD program for
the PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA determined that the portions of the
January 13, 2011, SIP revision addressed by today's action are
approvable because they are in

accordance with the CAA and EPA regulations.
    As result of EPA's approval of Georgia's changes to its air quality
regulations to incorporate the appropriate thresholds for GHG
permitting applicability into Georgia's SIP, paragraph (b) in 40 CFR
52.572, as included in EPA's PSD Narrowing Rule, is no longer
necessary. In this final action, EPA is amending 40 CFR 52.572 to
remove this unnecessary regulatory language.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this 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.
    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 CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by November 7, 2011. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. See CAA section 307(b)(2). For purposes of
judicial review, each of the SIP revisions approved by today's action
are severable from one another.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Greenhouse gases,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: August 16, 2011.
 A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    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 L--Georgia

0
2. Section 52.570 (c) is amended by revising the entry for ``391-3-
1-.02(7)'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.570  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                                            EPA Approved Georgia Regulations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    State
            State citation                   Title/subject        effective       EPA approval date                        Explanation
                                                                     date
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
391-3-1-.02(7).......................  Prevention of              12/29/2010  9/8/2011, [Insert         Georgia's PSD Rule 391-3-1-.02(7) incorporates
                                        Significant                            citation of               by reference the regulations found at 40 CFR
                                        Deterioration of Air                   publication].             52.21 as of June 3, 2010, with changes. This
                                        Quality (PSD).                                                   EPA action is approving the incorporation by
                                                                                reference with the exception of the following
                                                                                provisions: (1) the provisions amended in the
                                                                                Ethanol Rule (72 FR 24060) which exclude
                                                                                facilities that produce ethanol through a
                                                                                natural fermentation process from the
                                                                                definition of ``chemical process plants'' in
                                                                                the major NSR source permitting program found
                                                                                at 40 CFR 52.21(b)(1)(i)(a) and (b)(1(iii)(t);
                                                                                and 2) the administrative regulations amended
                                                                                in the Fugitive Emissions Rule (73 FR 77882).
                                                                                Additionally, this EPA action is not approving
                                                                                the ``automatic rescission clause'' provision
                                                                                at 391-3-1-.02(7)(a)2.(iv).
                                                                                This rule contains NOX as a precursor to ozone
                                                                                for PSD and NSR.

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

* * * * *

0
3. Section 52.572 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  52.572  Approval Status.

    With the exceptions set forth in this subpart, the Administrator
approves Georgia's plans for the attainment and maintenance of the
national standards under section 110 of the Clean Air Act. Furthermore,
the Administrator finds the plans satisfy all requirements of Part D,
Title I, of the Clean Air Act as amended in 1977.

[FR Doc. 2011-22666 Filed 9-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: May 22, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 100)]
[Notices]
[Page 29747-29750]
[DOCID:fr22my08-40]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PF08-13-000; Docket No. PF08-16-000]

Southern Natural Gas Company; Southeast Supply Header, LLC;
Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the
Proposed South System Expansion III Project and Joint Pipeline
Expansion Phase II Project and Request for Comments on Environmental
Issues

May 16, 2008.
    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will
address the environmental impacts of the South System Expansion III
Project (SSEIII Project) proposed by Southern Natural Gas Company (SNG)
and the Joint Pipeline Expansion Phase II Project (JPE Phase II
Project) proposed by Southeast Supply Header, LLC (SESH); together they
are referred to as ``the projects''. The Commission will use the EA in
its decision-making process to determine whether or not to authorize
the project. This notice explains the scoping process we \1\ will use
to gather environmental input from the public and interested agencies
on the projects. Your input will help the Commission determine the
issues that need to be evaluated in the EA. Please note that the
scoping period will close on June 16, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``We,'' ``us,'' and ``our'' refer to the environmental staff
of the FERC's Office of Energy Projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Details on how to submit written comments are provided in the
Public Participation section of this notice.
    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, you may be contacted
by a pipeline company representative about the acquisition of an
easement to construct, operate, and maintain the proposed project
facilities. Each pipeline company would seek to negotiate a mutually
acceptable agreement for its project. However, if the projects are
approved by the Commission, that approval conveys with it the right of
eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to produce an
agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation proceedings
in accordance with state law.
    This notice is being sent to affected landowners; federal, state,
and local government agencies; elected officials; environmental and
public interest groups; Native American tribes; other interested
parties; and local libraries and newspapers. We encourage government
representatives to notify their constituents of this planned project
and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
    A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled ``An Interstate Natural
Gas Facility on My Land? What Do I Need To Know?'' is available for
viewing on the FERC Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov). This fact
sheet addresses a number of typically asked questions, including the
use of eminent domain and how to participate in the FERC's proceedings.

Summary of the Proposed Projects

    SNG and SESH propose to construct, own, operate, and maintain
certain natural gas transportation facilities within the states of
Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana. The general

locations of the proposed pipeline and compression facilities are shown
in the figures included as Appendix 1.\2\ The purpose of the projects
is to provide natural gas transportation service to Georgia Power
Company's (Georgia Power) existing Plant McDonough. Georgia Power is
converting the Plant McDonough electric generation from coal-fueled to
natural gas-fueled. The SSEIII Project would increase pipeline capacity
on SNG's existing system to serve Georgia Power, and SESH's proposed
JPE Phase II Project would provide the required additional upstream
transportation capacity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The appendices referenced in this notice are not being
printed in the Federal Register. Copies of all appendices, other
than Appendix 1 (maps), are available on the Commission's Web site
at the ``eLibrary'' link or from the Commission's Public Reference
Room, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, or call (202)
502-8371. For instructions on connecting to eLibrary refer to the
Public Participation section of this notice. Copies of the
appendices were sent to all those receiving this notice in the mail.
Requests for detailed maps of the proposed facilities should be made
directly to SNG or SESH.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

SSEIII Project

    SNG proposes to construct the SSEIII Project in three phases. In
addition to the listed facilities, SNG would install a cathodic
protection system to mitigate pipeline corrosion, an AC mitigation
system where the pipeline would be near high voltage power lines, ten
pig launchers or receivers, and four mainline valves.
    Phase I would be constructed entirely within the state of Georgia.
The construction of the meter station would begin during the first
quarter of 2010 and would have an in-service date in the second quarter
of 2010. SNG proposes beginning construction of the Phase I pipeline
facilities in the second quarter of 2010 and having an in-service date
during the fourth quarter of 2010. The proposed facilities are listed
below.
     The Plant McDonough Meter Station would be constructed at
milepost (MP) 1.09 on SNG's South Atlanta-Austell Line in Fulton
County, Georgia.
     The Thomaston-Griffin Branch Third Loop (Thomaston-Griffin
Loop) would consist of about 31.2 miles of 30-inch-diameter pipeline
loop parallel to SNG's existing 20-inch-diameter Thomaston-Griffin
Branch Second Loop and two pipelines owned and operated by Atlanta Gas
Light Company between Thomaston and Griffin, Georgia in Upson, Lamar,
and Spalding Counties. The Thomaston-Griffin Loop would extend from
SNG's existing Thomaston Compressor Station (MP 0.0) in Upson County to
the interconnection with SNG's existing Riverdale pipeline in Spalding
County (MPs 0.0 to 31.2).
     The South Atlanta-Austell Replacement would consist of
replacement of about 10.9 miles of the existing 18-inch-diameter South
Atlanta-Austell pipeline with a 30-inch-diameter pipeline between
Riverdale and Union City in Fulton and Clayton Counties, Georgia (MPs
0.0 to 10.9).
    Phase II facilities would be constructed within the state of
Mississippi. SNG proposes to begin their construction during the fourth
quarter of 2010 and to have an in-service date during the second
quarter of 2011. The proposed Phase II facilities are listed below.
     The South Main Third Loop Line (Gwinville Loop) would
consist of about 9.5 miles of 36-inch-diameter pipeline loop
constructed adjacent to SNG's existing South Main System in Jefferson
Davis and Simpson Counties, Mississippi. The Gwinville Loop would
extend from SNG's existing Gwinville Compressor Station near Gwinville,
Jefferson Davis County to a point near Magee, Simpson County,
Mississippi (MPs 0.0 to 9.5).
     An additional 10,310 horsepower (hp) of compression and
associated ancillary facilities would be installed at SNG's existing
Bay Springs Compressor Station in Jasper County, Mississippi.
    Phase III facilities would be constructed in the states of
Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia. SNG proposes to begin construction
of these facilities during the third quarter of 2011 and to have an in-
service date during the second quarter of 2012. The proposed Phase II
facilities are listed below.
     The South Main Third Loop Line (Enterprise Loop) would
consist of about 2.8 miles of 36-inch-diameter pipeline loop
constructed adjacent to SNG's existing 30-, 24-, and 18-inch-diameter
pipelines in Lauderdale County, Mississippi. The Enterprise Loop would
extend between SNG's existing Enterprise and Bay Springs Compressor
Stations (MPs 89.6 to 92.6).
     The South Main Fourth Loop Line (Gallion Loop) would
consist of about 6.5 miles of 36-inch-diameter pipeline loop
constructed adjacent to SNG's existing 30-, 24-, and dual 18-inch-
diameter pipelines in Hale and Perry Counties, Alabama. The Gallion
Loop would extend between SNG's existing Gallion and Selma Compressor
Stations (MPs 149.9 to 156.4).
     The South Main Fourth Loop Line (Elmore Loop) would
consist of about 11.7 miles of 36-inch-diameter pipeline loop
constructed adjacent to SNG's existing 30-, 24-, 18-, and 16-inch-
diameter pipelines in Elmore County, Alabama. The Elmore Loop would
extend between SNG's existing Elmore and Auburn Compressor Stations
(MPs 221.6 to 233.3).
     An additional 7,000 hp of compression and associated
ancillary facilities would be installed at the existing Ellerslie
Compressor Station in Harris County, Georgia.

JPE Phase II Project

    SESH proposes the installation of additional compression at two of
its existing compressor stations as described below. SESH proposes
beginning construction of its facilities in October 2009 and having an
in-service date in July 2010.
     An additional 13,000 hp of compression and associated
ancillary facilities would be installed at its Delhi Compressor Station
in Richland Parish, Louisiana.
     An additional 13,000 hp of compression and associated
ancillary facilities would be installed at its Gwinville Compressor
Station in Jefferson Davis County, Mississippi.

Land Requirements for Construction

SSEIII Project

    The typical construction right-of-way width for the SSEIII Project
loop pipelines would vary between 90 and 100 feet. The majority of this
construction right-of-way, however, would overlap the existing
permanent rights-of-way of the adjacent pipelines. Therefore, between
zero and 30 feet of additional temporary right-of-way would be required
for construction. Construction of the South Atlanta-Austell Replacement
would be accomplished within a 65- to 80-foot-wide construction right-
of-way and would require up to 5 feet of additional temporary right-of-
way. The typical construction right-of-way width through wetlands would
be reduced to 75 feet. Following construction, SNG would retain between
zero and 20 feet of additional permanent right-of-way for operation.
    Additional temporary extra workspaces beyond the typical
construction right-of-way limits would be required at certain feature
crossings (e.g., roads, railroads, wetlands, or waterbodies,
utilities), in areas with steep side slopes, in association with
special construction techniques, for topsoil segregation, and for pipe,
equipment, and contractor yards. SNG would access its project
construction areas primarily along the existing pipeline right-of-way
and existing roads; however, other access roads may be required during
construction.

    Construction of most of SNG's proposed aboveground facilities would
be completed within the construction workspaces associated with
pipeline construction or within or adjacent to its existing compressor
station yards. Operation of the proposed additional compressor
facilities would be within the existing compressor station sites. The
proposed Plant McDonough Meter Station would require about 1.0 acre for
construction and operation.
    Based on preliminary information, construction of SNG's proposed
project facilities would affect about 867.5 acres including the
proposed meter station. Operation of the SSEIII Project would require
about 45.4 acres as permanent right-of-way that would be restored as
open land or as industrial where aboveground facilities would be
operated. The remaining 822.1 acres of temporary workspaces would be
restored and would return to previous land use. These totals do not
include the temporary land requirements for access roads or contractor,
pipe, or equipment yards.

JPE Phase II Project

    SESH would require about 56.0 acres for construction of the
compressor additions at both project locations of which about 44.0
acres would be required at the Delhi Compressor Station and about 12.0
acres would be required at the Gwinville Compressor Station. Operation
of the proposed facilities would not require any additional land
outside the existing compressor station sites. Access to both
construction areas would be along the permanent compressor station
access roads. No new temporary or permanent roads would be required.

Total Land Requirements

    The total land requirements for the projects would be 923.5 acres
for construction and about 45.4 acres for operation. The remaining
878.1 acres of temporary workspace (including all temporary
construction rights-of-way, extra workspaces, and pipe and contractor
yards) would be restored and allowed to revert to its former use.

The EA Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the
Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could
result from an action when it considers whether or not an interstate
natural gas pipeline should be approved. The FERC will use the EA to
consider the environmental impact that could result if the Projects are
authorized under section 7 of the Natural Gas Act. NEPA also requires
us to discover and address concerns the public may have about proposals
to be considered by the Commission. This process is referred to as
``scoping.'' The main goal of the scoping process is to focus the
analysis in the EA on the important environmental issues. With this
Notice of Intent, the Commission staff is requesting public comments on
the scope of the issues to be addressed in the EA. All comments
received will be considered during preparation of the EA.
    In the EA we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of
the construction and operation of the proposed project under these
general headings:
     Geology and soils;
     Land use;
     Water resources, fisheries, and wetlands;
     Cultural resources;
     Vegetation and wildlife;
     Threatened and endangered species;
     Air quality and noise;
     Hazardous waste; and
     Public safety.
    In the EA, we will also evaluate possible alternatives to the
proposed projects or portions of the projects, and make recommendations
on how to lessen or avoid impacts on affected resources.
    Although no formal application has been filed, the FERC staff has
already initiated its NEPA review under its NEPA Pre-filing Process.
The purpose of the Pre-filing Process is to encourage the early
involvement of interested stakeholders and to identify and resolve
issues before an application is filed with the FERC.

Public Participation

    You can make a difference by providing us with your specific
comments or concerns about the proposed project. By becoming a
commentor, your concerns will be addressed in the EA and considered by
the Commission. Your comments should focus on the potential
environmental effects, reasonable alternatives (including alternative
facility sites and pipeline routes), and measures to avoid or lessen
environmental impact. The more specific your comments, the more useful
they will be. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly
recorded, please carefully follow these instructions:
     Send an original and two copies of your letter to:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First St., NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
     Label one copy of your comments for the attention of Gas
Branch 2.
     Reference Docket No. PF08-13-000 for SNG's proposed SSEIII
Project and PF08-16-000 for SESH's proposed JPE Phase II Project on the
original and both copies.
     Mail your comments so that they will be received in
Washington, DC on or before June 16, 2008.
    Please note that the Commission strongly encourages electronic
filing of any comments or interventions or protests to this proceeding.
See 18 Code of Federal Regulations 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the
instructions on the Commission's Internet Web site at http://
www.ferc.gov under the link to ``Documents and Filings'' and
``eFiling.'' eFiling is a file attachment process and requires that you
prepare your submission in the same manner as you would if filing on
paper, and save it to a file on your hard drive. New eFiling users must
first create an account by clicking on ``Sign up'' or ``eRegister.''
You will be asked to select the type of filing you are making. This
filing is considered a ``Comment on Filing.'' In addition, there is a
``Quick Comment'' option available, which is an easy method for
interested persons to submit text only comments on a project. The
Quick-Comment User Guide can be viewed at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-
filing/efiling/quick-comment-guide.pdf. Quick Comment does not require
a FERC eRegistration account; however, you will be asked to provide a
valid e-mail address. All comments submitted under either eFiling or
the Quick Comment option are placed in the public record for the
specified docket or project number(s).
    We might mail the EA for comment. If you are interested in
receiving it, please return the Information Request (Appendix 3). If
you do not return the Information Request, you will be taken off the
mailing list.

Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at 1-866-208-FERC (3372) or on
the FERC Internet Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) using the ``eLibrary
link.'' Click on the eLibrary link, select ``General Search'' and enter
the project docket number excluding the last three digits (i.e., PF06-
1) in the ``Docket Number'' field. Be sure you have selected an
appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676,
or TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link on

the FERC Internet Web site also provides access to the texts of formal
documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and rule
makings.
    In addition, the FERC now offers a free service called
eSubscription that allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and
submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you
spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. To register for this service, go to http://www.ferc.gov/
esubscribenow.htm.
    SNG has established an Internet Web site for the SSEIII Project at
http://www.elpaso.com/sse3/default.shtm. The Web site includes a
description of the project, a map of the proposed pipeline route, and
contact information. You may also use SNG's toll free telephone number,
1-800-622-4481 to ask questions about the SSEIII Project.
    SESH has also established an Internet Web site for the JPE Phase II
Project at http://www.spectraenergy.com/businesses/projects/sesh/. The
SESH Web site includes contact information and information about its
proposed project. You may also use SESH's toll free telephone number,
1-888-312-7374, to ask questions about the JPE Phase II Project.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-11509 Filed 5-21-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 14, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6712-6715]
[FR Doc No: 2018-03047]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2009-0290; FMCSA-2009-0289; FMCSA-2011-0300; FMCSA-
2013-0190; FMCSA-2013-0191; FMCSA-2015-0338; FMCSA-2015-0339; FMCSA-
2015-0340]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of renewal of exemptions; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for 186
individuals from its prohibition in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Regulations (FMCSRs) against persons with insulin-treated diabetes
mellitus (ITDM) from operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in
interstate commerce. The exemptions enable these individuals with ITDM
to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.

DATES: Each group of renewed exemptions were applicable on the dates
stated in the discussions below and will expire on the dates stated in
the discussions below. Comments must be received on or before March 16,
2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected], FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30
p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have
questions regarding viewing or submitting material to the docket,
contact Docket Services, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2009-0290; FMCSA-2009-0289;
FMCSA-2011-0300; FMCSA-2013-0190; FMCSA-2013-0191; FMCSA-2015-0338;
FMCSA-2015-0339; FMCSA-2015-0340 using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility; U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington,

DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except
Federal Holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
docket number(s) for this notice. Note that all comments received will
be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below
for further information.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The FDMS is available 24 hours each day e.t.,
365 days each year. If you want acknowledgment that we received your
comments, please include a self-addressed, stamped envelope or postcard
or print the acknowledgement page that appears after submitting
comments online.
    Privacy Act: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits
comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT
posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information
the commenter provides, to http://www.regulations.gov, as described in
the system of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed
at http://www.dot.gov/privacy.

I. Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the FMCSRs for a five-year period if it finds ``such exemption
would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to or greater
than the level that would be achieved absent such exemption.'' The
statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the
five-year period. FMCSA grants exemptions from the FMCSRs for a two-
year period to align with the maximum duration of a driver's medical
certification.
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding diabetes
found in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no established medical
history or clinical diagnosis of diabetes mellitus currently requiring
insulin for control.
    The 186 individuals listed in this notice have requested renewal of
their exemptions from the diabetes standard in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3), in
accordance with FMCSA procedures. Accordingly, FMCSA has evaluated
these applications for renewal on their merits and decided to extend
each exemption for a renewable two-year period.

II. Request for Comments

    Interested parties or organizations possessing information that
would otherwise show that any, or all, of these drivers are not
currently achieving the statutory level of safety should immediately
notify FMCSA. The Agency will evaluate any adverse evidence submitted
and, if safety is being compromised or if continuation of the exemption
would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C.
31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA will take immediate steps to revoke the
exemption of a driver.

III. Basis for Renewing Exemptions

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(1), an exemption may be granted for no
longer than two years from its approval date and may be renewed upon
application. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each of
the 186 applicants has satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining
an exemption from the diabetes requirement (74 FR 55890; 74 FR 65836;
75 FR 1449; 75 FR 4622; 76 FR 71112; 77 FR 532; 78 FR 65034; 78 FR
68139; 79 FR 3917; 79 FR 4807; 80 FR 77408; 80 FR 79402; 80 FR 81415;
80 FR 81667). They have maintained their required medical monitoring
and have not exhibited any medical issues that would compromise their
ability to safely operate a CMV during the previous two-year exemption
period. These factors provide an adequate basis for predicting each
driver's ability to continue to drive safely in interstate commerce.
Therefore, FMCSA concludes that extending the exemption for each of
these drivers for a period of two years is likely to achieve a level of
safety equal to that existing without the exemption.
    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, the following
groups of drivers received renewed exemptions in the month of January
and are discussed below:
    As of January 5, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315, the following 16 individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers
with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (76 FR 71112; 77 FR
532; 80 FR 81667):

Mark A. Aspden (MA)
Rodney C. Backus (NY)
Gary L. Breitenbach (SC)
Gerald R. Curran (PA)
Matthew G. Denisov (NC)
Steven W. Gerling (IA)
Jackie D. Greenlee (MO)
Gregory L. Horton (GA)
Justin W. Jackson (OK)
David T. Kylander (MO)
Kevin A. Perdue (MD)
Michael E. Pleak (IN)
Christopher C. Stephenson (KS)
Todd J. Timmerman (WI)
Richard L. White (MS)
Paul A. Wright (NY)

    The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2011-0300. Their
exemptions are applicable as of January 5, 2018, and will expire on
January 5, 2020.
    As of January 11, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315, the following 23 individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers
with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (74 FR 55890; 75 FR
1449; 80 FR 81667):

Eric M. Butz (OH)
Rita A. Cefaratti (CT)
Gerald F. Crowley (NY)
Scott J. Denham (MN)
Larry E. Dickerson (GA)
David E. Ginter (PA)
William H. Goebel (IA)
Joseph L. Gray, III (PA)
Ryan R. Harris (IA)
Carroll J. Hartsell (WV)
Keith M. Huels (AZ)
Daniel R. Jackson (PA)
Curtis W. Keelin, Jr. (WY)
Patrick J. Krueger (WI)
Tammy Lynn F. Manuel (SC)
Francisco J. Martinez (MA)
Andrew W. Myer (NE)
Chad A. Nelson (UT)
David W. Olson (AZ)
Mark E. Pascoe (WI)
Terry L. Riddell (IN)
Roger L. Summerfield (WI)
Jimmy P. Wright (TX)

    The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2009-0289. Their
exemptions are applicable as of January 11, 2018, and will expire on
January 11, 2020.
    As of January 14, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315, the following 26 individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers
with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (80 FR 77408):

Jessie L. Arrant, Jr. (GA)
Joseph M. Benech (RI)
Shane M. Burgard (MN)
Wesley O. Davis (SC)
Steven P. DelPizzo (PA)
Gregory P. Doyle (CO)
Timothy D. Funk (IL)
Diane M. Greenberg (VA)

Brent P. Griswold (NY)
Earl E. Hudson, III (SC)
Gregory A. Huffman (TX)
Robert D. Lair, Jr. (AR)
Mark A. Leman (IL)
Michael S. Massa (PA)
Derek D. Patrick (MI)
Joseph M. Petrucci (NH)
James W. Prather (OH)
Edward O. Prosser (RI)
Dennis L. Ruff (WA)
William J. Shrader (CA)
Ronald L. Smith (KS)
Wayne D. Smith (VT)
Carnnell A. Taite (MI)
Robert S. Townsend (NH)
Zachary C. Warrick (NE)
Zachary C. White (CA)

    The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2015-0338. Their
exemptions are applicable as of January 14, 2018, and will expire on
January 14, 2020.
    As of January 21, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315, the following 35 individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers
with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (80 FR 79402):

Randall S. Blight (MI)
George S. Callahan (IN)
Myron D. Collins (CO)
Paul E. Costello (NE)
Pete J. Dewitt (CA)
Frank A. Earullo (IL)
Isadios P. Harris (NJ)
David A. Heine (ND)
Logan L. Jackson (CA)
Elie Jean (NJ)
Dean L. Jerpseth (MN)
Terrence P. Lescamela (MI)
Russell D. Logan (NC)
Tommaso Maccarrone (NJ)
Raymond Mendez (NY)
Anthony J. Miller (PA)
Marlin D. Milliken (PA)
Charles A. Mims (AL)
Gustavo A. Mojica (FL)
Timmothy S. Pederson (SD)
Carlos J. Perez-Beltran (PA)
Seth A. Piel (WI)
Carlos M. Pinto, (NY)
Peter C. Poungded (CA)
Michael D. Prestby (IA)
Wilson Rosado (IN)
Jason G. Ross (CA)
Sandra J. Sexton (IL)
Jacob A. Small (NJ)
Dale L. Vaughan (MO)
Tyler J. Vogt (IL)
Christoph Wagner (NJ)
Russell J. Welke (WI)
Donald L. Westbrook (PA)
David M. Wike (NC)

    The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2015-0339. Their
exemptions are applicable as of January 21, 2018, and will expire on
January 21, 2020.
    As of January 23, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315, the following 12 individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers
with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (78 FR 65034; 79 FR
3917; 80 FR 81667):

Clair H. Gilmore (WA)
Michael Kollos (MN)
Daniel T. Lindahl (WI)
James F. McSweeney (NH)
Eric W. Miller (IN)
William J. Rodgers (PA)
Mark A. Rosenau (MN)
Daniel B. Shaw (FL)
John C. Thomas (IN)
Richard Wasko (FL)
Douglas E. Wilhoit (PA)
Richard A. Wilk (OH)

    The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2015-0338. Their
exemptions are applicable as of January 23, 2018, and will expire on
January 23, 2020.
    As of January 28, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315, the following 21 individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers
with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (74 FR 65836; 75 FR
4622; 80 FR 81667):

Bob A. Bauer (WI)
Michael P. Berger (ND)
William D. Blosch (GA)
Victor M. Brunner (WI)
Tom L. Cooley (KS)
Robert G. Dohman, Jr. (ND)
Danny E. Edmonson (GA)
Andrew C. Everett (AZ)
Donald W. Hansen (ND)
Joseph S. Hernandez (NM)
Jordan T. Johnston (IN)
Jere W. Kirkpatrick (OH)
Kyle A. Leach (NE)
Robert J. Lewis, Jr. (VT)
Stacy R. Oberholzer (PA)
Michael S. Ogle (GA)
Walter L. Patrick (TN)
Richard A. Piercefield, Sr. (MI)
Kevin A. Roginski (PA)
Bruce M. Stockton (MO)
Todd R. Vickers (MD)

    The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2009-0290. Their
exemptions are applicable as of January 28, 2018, and will expire on
January 28, 2020.
    As of January 29, 2018, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e)
and 31315, the following 53 individuals have satisfied the renewal
conditions for obtaining an exemption from the rule prohibiting drivers
with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce (78 FR 68139; 79 FR
4807; 80 FR 81415; 80 FR 81667):

Elmer W. Barrall (DE)
Earl Bland (MO)
Kevin Bracken (PA)
Donald L. Callahan (KY)
Robert A. Collins (NJ)
Michael A. Craig (NC)
Roderick E. Dean (NJ)
Edward C. DeFrancesco (CT)
Eugene N. Dirl (PA)
Kevin F. Dykes (MA)
Jonathan Eggers (MN)
Richard L. Engle (KY)
Christopher J. Frank (NY)
Matthew E. Fry (KS)
Gilbert N. Fugate (IN)
Scott C. Garbiel (ME)
Al Glover, Jr. (LA)
Jimmy H. Goacher (NC)
Jim B. Gonzalez (OR)
William F. Hamann (KY)
Nathaniel K. Hamilton (TX)
Michael D. Henry (OH)
Jon C. Hicks (PA)
Kevin F. Hoffman (PA)
Jerry A. Huffman (NC)
Daurell A. Jones (MD)
Jerry J. Klosterman (OH)
Joseph E. Kolb (NY)
Larry C. Krueger (NE)
Chad M. Kuck (AK)
Craig A. Lemponen (OH)
Donald R. Leonard Jr. (NH)
Matthew P. Ludwig (NY)
Keith B. Masters (NH)
Sandra R. Moultrie (GA)
Jeffrey A. Olson (IA)
Howard L. Peacock (KS)
Chauncey W. Pittman (IN)
Brandon C. Rhinehart (MD)
James E. Richardson (NY)
Gerald C. Rosencrans (PA)
Henry J. Russo (NJ)
Richard G. Schumann (NJ)
Donald R. Sine, Jr. (WV)
Jefferson L. Smith (MA)
Troy T. Sunnarborg (MN)
Dennis E. Taunton (ID)
Phillip A. Trent (VA)
Deborah D. Watson (MI)
Ronnie C. Webb (MT)
William R. White (MI)
Curtis L. Worsfold (NE)
Jason D. Zagorski (NC)

    The drivers were included in docket numbers FMCSA-2013-0191; FMCSA-
2015-0340. Their exemptions are applicable as of January 29, 2018, and
will expire on January 29, 2020.

IV. Conditions and Requirements

    The exemptions are extended subject to the following conditions:
(1) Each driver must submit a quarterly monitoring checklist completed
by the treating endocrinologist as well as an

annual checklist with a comprehensive medical evaluation; (2) each
driver must report within two business days of occurrence, all episodes
of severe hypoglycemia, significant complications, or inability to
manage diabetes; also, any involvement in an accident or any other
adverse event in a CMV or personal vehicle, whether or not it is
related to an episode of hypoglycemia; (3) each driver must submit an
annual ophthalmologist's or optometrist's report; and (4) each driver
must provide a copy of the annual medical certification to the employer
for retention in the driver's qualification file, or keep a copy in
his/her driver's qualification file if he/she is self-employed. The
driver must also have a copy of the exemption when driving, for
presentation to a duly authorized Federal, State, or local enforcement
official. The exemption will be rescinded if: (1) The person fails to
comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the
exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained
before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not
be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and
31315.

V. Preemption

    During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall
enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with
respect to a person operating under the exemption.

VI. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 186 exemption applications, FMCSA
renews the exemptions of the aforementioned drivers from the rule
prohibiting drivers with ITDM from driving CMVs in interstate commerce.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, each exemption will be
valid for two years unless revoked earlier by FMCSA.

    Issued on: February 7, 2018.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-03047 Filed 2-13-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P