[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 132 (Monday, July 13, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33382-33384]
[FR Doc No: E9-16480]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 73

[Docket No. FAA-2009-0490; Airspace Docket No. 09-AWP-3]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Establishment of Restricted Area R-2502A; Fort Irwin, CA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish a restricted area (R-2502A)
at Fort Irwin, CA, as part of a Department of the Army initiative at
the National Training Center (NTC). The NTC is being expanded to meet
the critical need of the Army for additional training land and airspace
suitable for maneuvering large numbers of military personnel and
equipment. Additionally, this action would modify the Silver military
operation area (MOA) in the vicinity of the NTC Complex. Unlike
restricted areas, which are designated under 14 CFR part 73, MOAs are
not rulemaking airspace actions. However, since the proposed R-2502A
infringes on the Silver MOA, the FAA is including a description of the
Silver MOA change in this rule. The MOA change described here will also
be published in the National Flight Data Digest (NFDD). The Army
requested these airspace changes to provide the additional special use
airspace (SUA) above the expanded ground maneuver area to facilitate
realistic combat training at the NTC.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 27, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on the proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Dockets Operations, M-30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE.,
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify docket No. FAA-2009-0490
and Airspace Docket No. 09-AWP-3, at the beginning of your comments.
You may also submit comments on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ken McElroy, Airspace and Rules Group,

Office of System Operations Airspace and AIM, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No.
FAA-2009-0490 and Airspace Docket No. 09-AWP-3) and be submitted in
triplicate to the Federal Docket Management System (see ADDRESSES
section for address and phone number). You may also submit comments
through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to FAA Docket No. FAA-2009-0490 and Airspace Docket No. 09-AWP-3.'' The
postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received on or before the specified closing date
for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed
rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date
for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An
informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at
the office of the Western Service Center, Operations Support Group,
Federal Aviation Administration, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA
98055.
    Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future
NPRMs should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application
procedure.

Background

    The NTC at Fort Irwin, California, is the only instrumented
training area in the world suitable for force-on-force and live fire
training of heavy brigade-sized military forces. It provides the Army
with essential training opportunities necessary to maintain and improve
military readiness and promote national security.
    The Congress in 2001, directed the Department of the Army and the
Department of the Interior to draft a proposed plan that would expand
the maneuver training lands at the NTC.
    This airspace proposal aligns with that land expansion in order to
provide overlying airspace to conduct realistic combat training. The
expanded airspace enhances the training value of the land based on
training goals, equipment capabilities, and Army requirements.
Additionally, the employment of aviation assets, explosives, flares,
smoke, and other pyrotechnics devices will be deployed in the new
airspace.
    The FAA supports this proposal. However, the FAA would have
concerns for any additional expansion of the airspace in this area
higher than 16,000 feet mean sea level (MSL) in the proposed R-2502A
due to impacts to the National Airspace System (NAS). A review by the
FAA Los Angeles Air Route Traffic Control Center personnel made the
following observations: (1) The airspace adjacent to the south of
proposed R-2502A is used for separation and sequencing of arriving and
departing aircraft for the Los Angeles basin. Air traffic in this area
regularly operates at system capacity. A reduction of usable airspace
would significantly affect air traffic control services and cause
delays to system users. (2) The airspace along the northeast boundary
of proposed R-2502A is used for the separation and sequencing of air
traffic into Las Vegas, McCarran Airport. A reduction of usable
airspace would significantly affect air traffic control services and
cause delays to system users. (3) Because of R-2501, the usable
airspace along the southern and eastern boundaries of R-2502 East is
very constrained. This narrow corridor is heavily used for arrivals and
departures at the Los Angeles, Burbank, Van Nuys, and Las Vegas
airports. Keeping aircraft from deviating into the proposed R-2502A
vertical addition during the months when extensive convective weather
is common would be difficult.

Military Operation Area (MOA)

    Restricted areas are regulatory airspace designations, under Title
14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 73, which are established to
confine or segregate activities considered hazardous to non-
participating aircraft. A MOA is a non-rulemaking type of SUA
established to separate or segregate certain non-hazardous military
flight activities from aircraft operating in accordance with instrument
flight rules (IFR), and to identify for visual flight rules (VFR)
pilots where those activities are conducted. IFR aircraft may be routed
through an active MOA only when air traffic control can provide
approved separation from the MOA activity. VFR pilots are not
restricted from flying in an active MOA, but are advised to exercise
caution while doing so.
    Unlike restricted areas, which are designated through rulemaking
procedures, MOAs are non-rulemaking airspace areas that are established
administratively and published in the National Flight Data Digest.
Normally MOA proposals are not published in a NPRM, but instead, are
advertised for public comment through a non-rule circular that is
distributed by an FAA Service Center office to aviation interests in
the affected area. However, when a non-rulemaking action is connected
to a rulemaking action, FAA procedures allow for the non-rulemaking
proposal to be included in the NPRM. In such cases, the NPRM replaces
the non-rule circularization requirement. Because the change to the
Silver MOA North is necessary, due to the proposed establishment of the
restricted area, the MOA is being modified to exclude the airspace
contained in the proposed R-2502A.

Proposed MOA Change

Silver MOA North, CA

    Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 35[deg]39'00'' N., long.
115[deg]53'03'' W.; to lat. 35[deg]24'30'' N., long. 115[deg]53'03''
W.; to lat. 35[deg]06'50'' N., long. 116[deg]20'00'' W.; to lat.
35[deg]04'30'' N., long. 116[deg]29'00'' W.; to lat.

35[deg]07'00'' N.; long. 116[deg]34'03'' W.; to point of beginning.
Excluding the airspace below 3,000 feet AGL within a 3NM radius of the
town of Baker, CA (lat. 35[deg]16'00'' N. long. 116[deg]04'33'' W.;)
and R2502A.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 73 to establish Restricted Areas R-2502A at
Fort Irwin, CA. The U.S. Army has requested this restricted area
because the existing special use airspace does not include the airspace
above the expanded land maneuver area created to support the NTC. This
proposed action is required to ensure a safe training environment,
isolated from the public, for military air and ground maneuvers from
the surface to the upper limits of restricted airspace.
    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this proposed regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a
``significant rule'' under Department of Transportation (DOT)
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it proposes to establish restricted area airspace at Fort Irwin, CA.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subjected to the appropriate environmental
analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1E, Environmental Impacts:
Policies and Procedures, prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 73

    Airspace, Prohibited areas, Restricted areas.

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 73 as follows:

PART 73--SPECIAL USE AIRSPACE

    1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  73.25  [Amended]

    2. Sec.  73.25 is amended as follows:
* * * * *

R-2502A Fort Irwin, CA [New]

    Boundaries. Beginning at lat. 35[deg]25'48'' N., long.
116[deg]18'48'' W.; to lat. 35[deg]25'30'' N., long. 116[deg]09'46''
W.; to lat. 35[deg]23'15'' N., long. 116[deg]09'47'' W.; to lat.
35[deg]06'54'' N., long. 116[deg]30'17'' W.; to lat. 35[deg]07'00'' N.,
long. 116[deg]34'03'' W.; to lat. 35[deg]18'45'' N., long.
116[deg]18'48'' W. to point of beginning.
    Designated altitudes. Surface to 16,000 feet MSL.
    Time of designation. Continuous.
    Controlling agency. FAA, Hi-Desert TRACON, Edwards, CA.
    Using agency. Commander, Fort Irwin, CA.
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 6, 2009.
Edith V. Parish,
Manager, Airspace and Rules Group.
[FR Doc. E9-16480 Filed 7-10-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 205 (Friday, October 23, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64461-64462]
[FR Doc No: 2015-26910]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-76186; SR-NYSEArca-2015-02]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of
Withdrawal of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1
Thereto, To Amend NYSE Arca Equities Rule 8.600 To Adopt Generic
Listing Standards for Managed Fund Shares

October 19, 2015.
    On February 17, 2015, NYSE Arca, Inc. (``Exchange'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to
Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\
and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to amend NYSE Arca
Equities Rule 8.600 to adopt generic listing standards for Managed Fund
Shares. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
Federal Register on March 10, 2015.\3\ On April 17, 2015, pursuant to
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\4\ the Commission designated a longer
period within which to either approve the proposed rule change,
disapprove the proposed rule change, or institute proceedings to
determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule change.\5\ On June 3,
2015, the Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change.
On June 11, 2015, the Commission published a notice of filing

of Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change and an order instituting
proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \6\ to determine
whether to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, as modified
by Amendment No. 1 thereto.\7\ On September 2, 2015, pursuant to
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\8\ the Commission designated a longer
period within which to either approve or disapprove the proposed rule
change.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74433 (Mar. 4,
2015), 80 FR 12690.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 74755, 80 FR 22762
(Apr. 23, 2015). The Commission determined that it was appropriate
to designate a longer period within which to take action on the
proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the
proposed rule change and the comments received. Accordingly, the
Commission designated June 8, 2015 as the date by which it should
approve, disapprove, or institute proceedings to determine whether
to disapprove the proposed rule change.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 75115 (Jun. 5,
2015), 80 FR 33309.
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 75813, 80 FR 54330
(Sept. 9, 2015). The Commission designated November 5, 2015 as the
date by which the Commission should either approve or disapprove the
proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 13, 2015, the Exchange withdrew the proposed rule change
(SR-NYSEArca-2015-02), as modified by Amendment No. 1 thereto.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-26910 Filed 10-22-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 54 (Monday, March 21, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15983-15984]
[FR Doc No: 2022-05887]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP21-6-000]

Spire Storage West, LLC.; Notice of Availability of the Final
Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Clear Creek Expansion
Project

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission), with the participation of the U.S. Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) as a cooperating agency as described below, has
prepared a final environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Clear
Creek Expansion Project (Project) proposed by Spire Storage West, LLC
(Spire). Spire requests authorization to expand natural gas storage at
its existing Clear Creek Storage Field, modify the Clear Creek Plant to
increase compression, decommission and remove facilities from the Clear
Creek Plant, and move natural gas liquid storage and fueling equipment
to an existing tank pad. Spire further proposes to construct pipeline
connections north to the Canyon Creek Plant and south to the Kern River
Gas Transmission mainline. All Project components are proposed in Uinta
County, Wyoming.
    The final EIS assesses the potential environmental effects of the
construction and operation of the Project in accordance with the
requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). As
described in the final EIS, the FERC staff concludes that approval of
the Project would result in some adverse environmental impacts;
however, these impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels
because of the impact

avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures proposed by Spire and
those recommended by staff in the EIS. Regarding climate change
impacts, FERC staff conclude that greenhouse gas emissions would fall
below the Commission's presumptive significance threshold.
    The BLM participated as a cooperating agency in preparation of this
EIS. Cooperating agencies have jurisdiction by law or special expertise
with respect to resources potentially affected by the proposal and
participate in the NEPA analysis. The BLM provided input into the
analyses, conclusions, and recommendations presented in the EIS.
Following issuance of the final EIS, the BLM will issue subsequent
decisions, determinations, permits, or authorizations for the Project
in accordance with its own regulatory requirements. The BLM would use
this EIS to satisfy compliance with NEPA and other related federal
environmental laws (e.g., the National Historic Preservation Act).
    The final EIS addresses the potential environmental effects of the
construction and operation of the following Project facilities:
     Four compressor units and associated processing equipment
at the Clear Creek Plant;
     a tank storage and natural gas liquids fueling equipment
facility on an existing pad;
     11 new injection/withdrawal wells, one new water disposal
well, and associated lines;
     approximately 7 miles of 20-inch-diameter pipeline;
     approximately 3.6 miles of 24-inch-diameter pipeline; and
     other related appurtenances.
    The Commission mailed a copy of the Notice of Availability of the
final EIS to federal, state, and local government representatives and
agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups;
Indian Tribes; potentially affected landowners and other interested
individuals and groups; and newspapers and libraries in the area of the
Project. The final EIS is only available in electronic format. It may
be viewed and downloaded from the FERC's website (www.ferc.gov), on the
Environmental Documents page (https://www.ferc.gov/industries/gas/enviro/eis.asp). In addition, the final EIS may be accessed by using
the eLibrary link on the FERC's website. Click on the eLibrary link
(https://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp), click on General
Search, and enter the docket number in the ``Docket Number'' field,
excluding the last three digits (i.e., CP21-6). Be sure you have
selected an appropriate date range. For assistance, please contact FERC
Online Support at [email protected] or toll free at (866) 208-
3676, or for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The final EIS is not a decision document. It presents Commission
staff's independent analysis of the environmental issues for the
Commission to consider when addressing the merits of all issues in this
proceeding.

Questions?

    Additional information about the Project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC website (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. The eLibrary link
also provides access to the texts of all formal documents issued by the
Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission 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. Go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.
    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC website (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. The eLibrary link
also provides access to the texts of all formal documents issued by the
Commission, such as orders, notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which 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. Go to https://www.ferc.gov/ferc-online/overview to
register for eSubscription.

    Dated: March 15, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-05887 Filed 3-18-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 115 (Wednesday, June 15, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 34872-34876]
[FR Doc No: 2011-14480]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0046; FRL-9318-1]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of
California; Regional Haze and Interstate Transport

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Under the Clean Air Act (``CAA'' or ``Act''), EPA is approving
a State Implementation Plan (``SIP'') revision submitted by the State
of California on November 16, 2007, for the purpose of addressing the
interstate transport provisions of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for
the 1997 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (``NAAQS''
or ``standards'') and the 1997 fine particulate matter
(``PM2.5'') NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA
requires that each State have adequate provisions to prohibit air
emissions from adversely affecting air quality in other States through
interstate transport. Specifically, EPA is finalizing approval of
California's SIP revision for the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS as meeting the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) to prohibit emissions that will contribute
significantly to nonattainment of these standards in any other State
and to prohibit emissions that will interfere with maintenance of these
standards by any other State. EPA proposed to approve these SIP
revisions on March 17, 2011 (76 FR 14616).

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective on July 15, 2011.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0046 for
this action. The index to the docket is available electronically at
http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents in the
docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly
available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material),
and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g.,
confidential business information). To inspect the hard copy materials,
please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the
contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rory Mays, Air Planning Office (AIR-
2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, the terms ``we,''
``us,'' and ``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Proposed Action
III. Public Comments and EPA Responses
IV. Final Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated new standards for 8-hour ozone
(62 FR 38856) and PM2.5 (62 FR 38652). We are taking this
action in response to the promulgation of these standards (the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS) to address the
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). This action does not
address the requirements of the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS or the 2008
8-hour ozone NAAQS; those standards will be addressed in future
actions.
    Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires States to submit SIPs to
address a new or revised NAAQS within three years after promulgation of
such standards, or within such shorter period as the EPA Administrator
may prescribe. Section 110(a)(2) lists the elements that such new SIPs
must address, as applicable, including section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), which
pertains to interstate transport of certain emissions. On August 15,
2006, EPA issued a guidance memorandum that

provides recommendations to States for making submissions to meet the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone and
PM2.5 standards (2006 Guidance).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Memorandum from William T. Harnett entitled ``Guidance for
State Implementation Plan (SIP) Submission to Meet Current
Outstanding Obligations Under Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-hour
ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards,''
August 15, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On November 16, 2007, the California Air Resources Board (CARB)
submitted the ``Proposed State Strategy for California's 2007 State
Implementation Plan'' to attain the 1997 8-hour ozone and
PM2.5 NAAQS (2007 State Strategy).\2\ Appendix C of the 2007
State Strategy, as modified by Attachment A,\3\ contains California's
SIP revision to address the Transport SIP requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS
(2007 Transport SIP). The State based its submittal on EPA's 2006
Guidance. As explained in the 2006 Guidance, the ``good neighbor''
provisions in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) require each State to submit a
SIP that contains adequate provisions to prohibit emissions from
sources within that State from adversely affecting another State in the
ways contemplated in the statute. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) identifies
four distinct elements related to the evaluation of impacts of
interstate transport of air pollutants. In this rulemaking EPA is
addressing the first two elements: (1) Significant contribution to
nonattainment of these NAAQS in any other State, and (2) interference
with maintenance of these NAAQS by any other State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See transmittal letter dated November 16, 2007, from James
N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB, to Wayne Nastri, Regional
Administrator, EPA Region 9, with enclosures, and CARB Resolution
No. 07-28 (September 27, 2007).
    \3\ See ``Technical and Clarifying Modifications to April 26,
2007 Revised Draft Air Resources Board's Proposed State Strategy for
California's 2007 State Implementation Plan and May 7, 2007 Revised
Draft Appendices A through G,'' included as Attachment A to CARB's
Board Resolution 07-28 (September 27, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Proposed Action

    On March 17, 2011, EPA proposed to find that the California SIP is
adequate to prevent significant contribution to nonattainment of, and
interference with maintenance of, the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in any other State, as required by CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). See 76 FR 14616. Our proposed action did
not address the remaining two elements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)
regarding interference with measures required to prevent significant
deterioration of air quality or to protect visibility in another State.
We intend to evaluate and act upon these remaining elements of
California's SIP submittal in separate actions, subject to notice and
comment and publication in the Federal Register.
    For a more detailed discussion of the 2007 Transport SIP, the
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), and the rationale for our
proposed action, please see our March 17, 2011 proposed rule (76 FR
14616) and related Technical Support Document, both of which can be
found in the docket for today's action.

III. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    The publication of EPA's proposed rule on March 17, 2011 (76 FR
14616) started a 30-day public comment period that ended on April 18,
2011. During this period, we received a comment letter from the Morongo
Band of Mission Indians (Morongo) and a comment letter from the
Pechanga Band of Luise[ntilde]o Mission Indians (Pechanga). We have
summarized the comments from the Morongo and Pechanga (collectively the
``Tribes'' or ``commenters'') and provided our responses below.
    Comment #1: The Tribes assert that neither California nor EPA
analyzed potential impacts of transported ozone and PM2.5
air pollution on their respective reservations or on other Indian
country immediately downwind of California nonattainment areas, and
that EPA did not acknowledge their existence as affected, downwind
governments. The Tribes assert that they are each ``comparable to a
state'' with respect to the effect of upwind emission sources in
California, which contribute overwhelmingly to nonattainment in their
reservations, and that they are both in the process of seeking
``Treatment in the Same Manner as a State (TAS)'' under the CAA. The
Tribes also assert that they have either received TAS or completed the
application process for TAS under the Clean Water Act. Finally, the
Tribes claim that, if EPA were to require that the California SIP
``treat the Tribe[s] equitably'' in addressing the provisions of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), then additional control measures for the
South Coast Air Basin would be needed to prohibit emissions that would
contribute significantly to nonattainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone and
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS or interfere with maintenance of these
standards in their respective reservations, analogous to the
prohibition against having such effect in any other State.
    Response #1: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA requires that
each SIP contain adequate provisions to prohibit any source or other
type of emissions activity within the State from ``contribut[ing]
significantly to nonattainment'' of the NAAQS or ``interfer[ing] with
maintenance'' of the NAAQS in ``any other State.'' \4\ The commenters
provide no specific factual or analytical support for their claim that
emissions from California sources contribute significantly to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone or
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in their respective reservations or other
Indian country, nor do they provide any support for their assertion
that evaluation of such impacts under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for
these standards would have resulted in a requirement for California to
adopt additional control measures for sources in the South Coast Air
Basin.\5\ Nevertheless, in response to these comments, EPA has
considered whether emissions from California sources could have the
prohibited adverse impacts in the Morongo or Pechanga reservations in
accordance with the methodologies we use to evaluate SIP submittals for
these standards under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with respect to transport
impacts on states. Based on this evaluation, we conclude that
California's SIP currently contains adequate provisions to prohibit
such impacts for the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The term ``State'' is defined in the Clean Air Act as ``a
State, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
the Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa and includes the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.'' CAA section 302(d).
    \5\ Both Tribes acknowledge that they do not currently have TAS
status under the CAA. As described below, however, EPA has evaluated
the sufficiency of the State's SIP submission in light of potential
impacts on the Tribes' reservations from sources located in
surrounding State areas. Thus, we do not need to address in this
action the question whether CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires
that a SIP address impacts on Indian country geographically located
within the submitting State or how the TAS status of the
potentially-affected Tribe(s) may be relevant to that issue.
Similarly, we also do not need to address the Tribes' comment
regarding TAS under the Clean Water Act as that does not affect the
analysis of CAA requirements EPA conducted for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We began our analysis by reviewing the ozone and PM2.5
air quality monitors that we identified as ``receptor'' locations for
purposes of evaluating SIPs submitted to address the requirements of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone or 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS. As described in our proposed rule (76 FR
14616), EPA evaluated data from existing monitors over three
overlapping 3-year periods (i.e., 2003-2005, 2004-2006, and 2005-2007),
as well as air quality modeling data, to

determine which areas are predicted to be violating these NAAQS in
2012, and which areas are predicted potentially to have difficulty
maintaining attainment as of that date. 76 FR 14616 at 14618. We
identified as ``nonattainment receptors'' those monitoring sites that
are projected to be violating the NAAQS in 2012, based on the average
of these three overlapping periods. Id. Separately, we identified as
``maintenance receptors'' those monitoring sites that were violating
the NAAQS based on the highest single three-year period during 2003-
2007, but not over the average of the three periods. Id. at 14619,
14623. We described these ``maintenance receptors'' as those monitoring
sites that remain at risk of slipping into nonattainment in 2012 if
there are adverse variations in meteorology or emissions. Id.
    These methodologies for identifying ``nonattainment receptors'' and
``maintenance receptors'' take into account historic variability of
emissions at specific monitoring sites to analyze whether or not the
relevant areas are expected to be violating or attaining the NAAQS in
2012. In both the 1998 NOX SIP Call \6\ and the 2005 Clean
Air Interstate Rule,\7\ EPA evaluated significant contribution to
nonattainment as measured or predicted at monitors in a comparable
fashion. EPA believes that this approach to evaluating significant
contribution is correct under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D), and EPA's
general approach to this threshold determination has not been disturbed
by the courts.\8\ As explained in the proposal, EPA is addressing
interference with maintenance separately in order to address concerns
that the Agency had not previously given sufficient independent meaning
to that requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See ``Finding of Significant Contribution and Rulemaking for
Certain States in the Ozone Transport Assessment Group Region for
Purposes of Reducing Regional Transport of Ozone,'' 63 FR 57356,
57371-57372 (October 27, 1998) (``NOX SIP Call'').
    \7\ See ``Rule to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine
Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule); Revisions
to Acid Rain Program; Revisions to the NOX SIP Call;
Final Rule,'' 70 FR 25162 at 25167 (May 12, 2005) (``CAIR'').
    \8\ Michigan v. U.S. EPA, 213 F.3d 663, 674-681 (DC Cir. 2000);
North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 913-916 (DC Cir. 2008)
(upholding EPA approach to determining threshold despite remanding
other aspects of CAIR).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with these methodologies, to determine whether emissions
from California sources contribute significantly to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone or 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS in any other State, EPA evaluated air quality
monitoring data from the eastern portion of the U.S. under
consideration in EPA's Transport Rule Proposal (75 FR 45210) without
regard to the jurisdictional status of different areas within each
State. See 76 FR 14616 at 14618-14619. EPA conducted a similar analysis
of air quality data for the western U.S. not covered by the Transport
Rule Proposal. Id. This analysis for western States is embodied in the
``Timin Memo.'' 9 10
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Memorandum from Brian Timin, EPA Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, ``Documentation of Future Year Ozone and
Annual PM2.5 Design Values for Monitors in Western
States,'' August 23, 2010 (Timin Memo).
    \10\ In addition to relying upon these methodologies for
identifying ``nonattainment receptors'' and ``maintenance
receptors'' based on 2003-2007 monitoring data, EPA reviewed more
recent, preliminary monitoring data for the 2007-2009 period
available in EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) database from all ozone
and PM2.5 monitoring sites in Oregon, Nevada, and Arizona
and found no violations of the 1997 8-hour ozone or 1997
PM2.5 standards in these adjacent States during this
period. See 76 FR 14616 at 14621, 14623, and 14625. These data
further support our findings but are not a necessary basis for our
conclusion that emissions from California sources do not have the
prohibited adverse impacts on any other State for the 1997 8-hour
ozone or 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although by its terms CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) explicitly
addresses impacts on States, in response to the commenters' concerns,
EPA reviewed air quality monitoring data from monitors located on the
Morongo Reservation and on the Pechanga Reservation. For both
reservations, EPA found that ozone and PM2.5 air quality
monitoring data is not available for the full 2003-2007 period, the
time period that provided the basis for our evaluation methodology
under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS.\11\ Thus, neither reservation has a monitor for
ozone or for PM2.5 that EPA projected to be violating either
NAAQS in 2012, based on the average of the three overlapping periods
that EPA evaluated for these purposes (i.e., 2003-2005, 2004-2006, and
2005-2007). Additionally, neither reservation has a monitor that EPA
projected to remain at risk of slipping into nonattainment of either
NAAQS in 2012, based on the highest single three-year period during
2003-2007. Id. EPA therefore did not identify any ``nonattainment
receptors'' or ``maintenance receptors'' for these standards on either
reservation.\12\ \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ For the Morongo Reservation, EPA's AQS database contains
ozone monitoring data starting in 2006. See U.S. EPA AQS, Quick Look
Report for 8-hour ozone, Site ID TT-582-1016 (2003-2011). For the
Pechanga Reservation, EPA's AQS database contains ozone monitoring
data starting in 2008 and PM2.5 monitoring data starting
in 2010. See U.S. EPA AQS, Quick Look Report for 8-hour ozone and
PM2.5, Site ID TT-586-0009 (2003-2011).
    \12\ See Timin Memo at Appendix A and Appendix B.
    \13\ We note that data from the ozone monitor on the Morongo
Reservation during the more recent 2006-2011 period appear to
indicate that the area is violating the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (see
U.S. EPA AQS, Quick Look Report for 8-hour ozone, Site ID TT-582-
1016 (2003-2011)). However, EPA has not yet verified the validity of
these data for regulatory purposes in accordance with section 2.5 of
40 CFR part 58, Appendix A. In the event that EPA confirms this data
is valid and this monitor continues to show violations of the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS in the future, EPA may evaluate whether
additional actions are appropriate or necessary under the CAA to
bring this area into attainment, based upon subsequently available
data and analyses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because neither the Morongo Reservation nor the Pechanga
Reservation contains any ``nonattainment receptor'' or ``maintenance
receptor'' appropriate for purposes of evaluating California's 2007
Transport SIP in accordance with the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and the analytical approach that EPA is using to
evaluate potential transport impacts between states, we do not have a
basis for concluding that emissions from California sources
``contribute significantly to nonattainment'' or ``interfere with
maintenance'' of the 1997 8-hour ozone or 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS
in either reservation at this time. The Tribes' comments provide no
specific information to support such a conclusion.
    Furthermore, we note that the Morongo Reservation and most of the
Pechanga Reservation are located within the geographic borders of the
Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin in southern California, which is
currently designated and classified as an ``extreme'' nonattainment
area for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. See 40 CFR 81.305; see also 75 FR
24409 (May 5, 2010) (reclassifying South Coast Air Basin from ``severe-
17'' to ``extreme'' nonattainment for 8-hour ozone NAAQS but deferring
reclassification of Indian country pertaining to Morongo and
Pechanga).\14\ As such, California is already subject to the most
stringent air quality planning and control requirements for ozone
nonattainment areas under subpart 2 of part D, title I of the CAA. For
example, ``extreme'' ozone nonattainment areas are subject to the most
stringent New Source Review regulatory threshold and offset ratio (CAA
sections 182(e), 182(f)) and must require that certain electric utility
and

industrial and commercial boilers either primarily burn low-polluting
fuels or use advanced control technology to reduce emissions of
NOX (CAA section 182(e)(3)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The entire Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin, including
Indian country located within its borders, is also designated and
classified as ``extreme'' nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.
40 CFR 81.305.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin is also designated as
nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and, therefore,
subject to stringent air quality planning and control requirements for
PM2.5 nonattainment areas under subpart 1 of part D, title I
of the CAA. For example, CAA section 172(c)(1) requires that California
adopt and implement all reasonably available control measures
(including, at a minimum, reasonably available control technology for
stationary sources) that will provide for attainment of the
PM2.5 NAAQS in this area as expeditiously as practicable.
See 40 CFR 51.1010. EPA is currently evaluating the nonattainment plans
for the Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin submitted by the State of
California and the South Coast Air Quality Management District to meet
these requirements of part D, title I of the CAA for the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS and the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    Although the fact that areas adjacent to the Morongo Reservation
and Pechanga Reservation are subject to stringent planning and control
requirements does not eliminate the possibility of pollution transport
from these areas, the stringency of the control requirements in this
particular geographic area would be an important element of EPA's
analysis under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA evaluates
``significant contribution to nonattainment'' and ``interference with
maintenance'' under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) by considering not only
the potential for pollution transport and the amount of such transport
if it exists, but also the level and cost of control in an upwind area
that would be necessary to prohibit such transport to the downwind
area. See Transport Rule Proposal, 75 FR 45210 at 45273-45274 (August
2, 2010) (citing North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 at 908, 917-920
(DC Cir. 2008), in which the court confirmed that EPA may use cost of
control as a factor in evaluating interstate transport). Thus, a
technical finding that pollutants from an upwind area are transported
to a downwind area does not, in itself, constitute a finding of
``significant contribution to nonattainment'' or ``interference with
maintenance'' for regulatory purposes under section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
of the CAA. Given these considerations, even if we were to conclude
that emissions from California sources adversely impact air quality at
monitors suitable for treatment as nonattainment receptors or
maintenance receptors in the Pechanga or Morongo Reservations, section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA would not necessarily require that
California adopt additional control measures to address such pollution
impacts. We could not disapprove California's SIP submission without
having completed that analysis and concluded that the state needed to
impose additional controls in order to eliminate significant
contribution or prevent interference with maintenance, which is a
determination which is partially dependent upon the cost of control.
    In sum, although by its terms section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) explicitly
addresses States, in response to these specific comments from Morongo
and Pechanga, we have conducted a preliminary evaluation of potential
impacts on the Tribes' reservations based on our current methodology
for evaluating SIPs submitted to address the requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 1997 8-hour ozone and 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS. Based on this evaluation and available air
quality monitoring data, we have determined that California's SIP
contains provisions adequate to satisfy the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for these NAAQS. This determination does not,
however, apply to California's obligations to address interstate
transport of pollution under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for other
NAAQS, which EPA intends to evaluate in separate actions, in accordance
with applicable requirements and available air quality monitoring data,
as appropriate. Moreover, if subsequent facts or analyses indicate that
further action is necessary in this area to address nonattainment
throughout the South Coast Air Basin, EPA can act at a later time after
the initial section 110(a)(2)(D) submissions to call for revisions of
the SIP to provide for additional emissions controls if such action is
warranted. EPA recognizes the commenters' concerns about the impacts of
air pollutant emissions throughout the South Coast Air Basin and is
committed to working with the Tribes and the State to address these air
quality concerns.
    Comment #2: The Tribes assert that EPA failed to consult with them
regarding potential impacts on their reservations or other Federally
recognized tribal lands immediately downwind of California
nonattainment areas, referencing EPA's ``Proposed Final Policy on
Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribes,'' 75 FR 78198
(December 15, 2010) in support of this comment. The Tribes assert that
this failure to consult or to consider the Tribes as ``affected
`state[s]' subject to overwhelming transport emissions from
California'' is a major flaw in EPA's proposed rulemaking.
    Response #2: EPA endeavors to consult with Federally recognized
tribal governments when Agency actions and decisions may have ``tribal
implications'' or affect tribal interests, pursuant to long-standing
EPA policy on consultation and coordination with Indian Tribes. See
``EPA Policy for the Administration of Environmental Programs on Indian
Reservations'' (November 8, 1984); Executive Order 13175,
``Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments,'' 65 FR
67249 (November 9, 2000); ``EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribes'' (May 4, 2011).
    Because the California SIP is not approved to apply in Indian
country located in the State, this action has no regulatory
consequences for emission sources in Indian country and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
We note, however, that EPA is currently consulting with both Morongo
and Pechanga in response to their requests for boundary changes to
establish separate nonattainment areas or, in the alternative, to
extend the boundaries of adjacent, lower-classified nonattainment areas
to include the Tribes' Indian country. See 75 FR 24409, 24411 (May 5,
2010) (deferring reclassification of the Morongo and Pechanga
Reservations within the South Coast Air Basin pending EPA's final
decisions on the Tribes' boundary change requests). EPA has also
initiated a process to consult with interested Indian Tribes on issues
related to the Transport Rule Proposal (75 FR 45210, August 2, 2010)
and will conclude this consultation before making final decisions on
those issues. See 76 FR 1109 at 1118 (January 7, 2011) (requesting
comment on options for allocating allowances to covered units that
might in the future be constructed in Indian country located within the
Transport Rule region).
    Due to a court-ordered deadline to take final action on
California's 2007 Transport SIP by May 10, 2011,\15\ we are proceeding
with this rulemaking action at this time. We encourage both Tribes,
however, to participate in other processes that are already underway to
address their concerns regarding cross-boundary air pollution impacts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See WildEarth Guardians v. U.S. EPA (Case No. 4:09-CV-
02453-CW), Consent Decree dated November 10, 2009.

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

    As to the Tribes' assertion that EPA's failure to consider them
affected ``States'' subject to overwhelming transport of emissions from
California is a major flaw in our proposed rule, we disagree for the
reasons discussed above in Response 1.

IV. Final Action

    Under CAA section 110(k)(3), EPA is fully approving the 2007
Transport SIP submitted by CARB on November 17, 2007, as adequate to
prohibit emissions from California sources that will contribute
significantly to nonattainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone or 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS in any other State, as required by CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA is also approving the 2007 Transport SIP as
adequate to prohibit emissions from California sources that will
interfere with maintenance of these NAAQS by any other State, as
required by section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). Accordingly, we find that the
California SIP contains provisions adequate to prevent significant
contribution to nonattainment of, and interference with maintenance of,
these NAAQS.
    EPA will address in separate actions, subject to notice and comment
and publication in the Federal Register, the remaining two elements of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) regarding interference with measures
required to prevent significant deterioration of air quality or to
protect visibility in any other State.

V. Statutory and Executive Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive 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 Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this final 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 Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 15, 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).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

     Dated: May 10, 2011.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations 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 F--California

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(386)(ii)(A)(3) to
read as follows:

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (386) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (A) * * *
    (3) 2007 Transport SIP at pages 19-20 (Attachment A) (``Evaluation
of Significant Contribution to Nonattainment or Interference with
Maintenance of Attainment Standards in Another State'').
* * * * *

0
3. Section 52.283 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(2) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.283  Interstate Transport.

    (a) * * *
    (2) The requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) regarding
significant contribution to nonattainment of the 1997 standards in any
other State and interference with maintenance of the 1997 standards by
any other State.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2011-14480 Filed 6-14-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: October 17, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 200)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 60932-60934]
[DOCID:fr17oc06-36]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

29 CFR Part 1915

[Docket No. S-051A]
RIN 1218-AC16

Updating National Consensus Standards in OSHA's Standard for Fire
Protection in Shipyard Employment.

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Department of
Labor.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: On September 15, 2004, the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) issued a new fire protection final rule for
shipyards that incorporated by reference 19 National Fire Protection
Association (NFPA) standards. Ten of those NFPA standards had been
updated by NFPA since the fire protection rule was proposed and an
additional NFPA standard has been updated since the final rule was
published. In today's Federal Register, OSHA is publishing a direct
final rule (DFR) replacing the references to the 11 older NFPA
standards in OSHA's fire protection standard for shipyards with their
most recent versions.
    If OSHA does not receive significant adverse comment on the DFR,
the updated versions of the NFPA standards will replace their older
versions in OSHA's fire protection standard for shipyards on the
effective date stated in the DFR. If significant adverse comment on the
updated versions is received, OSHA will withdraw the DFR and proceed
with rulemaking on this proposed rule. However, if significant adverse
comments are received regarding certain provisions included in the DFR,
but not others, OSHA may finalize those changes that did not receive
significant adverse comment, and conduct further rulemaking under the
proposed rule for the changes that did receive significant adverse
comment. A subsequent Federal Register document will be published to
announce OSHA's action.

DATES: Comments and requests for a hearing on this proposed rule must
be submitted by the following dates:
    Hard copy: Your comments must be submitted (postmarked or sent) by
November 16, 2006. Electronic transmission and facsimile: Your comments
must be sent by November 16, 2006.

ADDRESSES: You may submit written comments to this proposed rule--
identified by docket number S-051A or RIN number 1218-AC16--by any of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     OSHA Web site: http://ecomments.osha.gov. Follow the

instructions for submitting comments on OSHA's Web page.
     Fax: If your written comments are 10 pages or fewer, you
may fax them to the OSHA Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Regular mail, express delivery, hand delivery, and courier
service: Submit three copies to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No. S-
051A, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room N-
2625, Washington, DC 20210; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. (OSHA's TTY
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>). OSHA Docket Office hours of operation are
8:15 a.m. to 4:45 p.m., EST.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: For general information and press inquiries,
contact Kevin Ropp, Director, OSHA Office of Communications, Room N-
3647, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20210; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. For technical
inquiries, contact Jim Maddux, Director, Office of Maritime,
Directorate of Standards and Guidance, Room N-3609, OSHA, U.S.
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20210; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER> or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>. Copies of this
Federal Register notice are available from the OSHA Office of
Publications, Room N-3101, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Electronic copies of this Federal Register notice, as well as news
releases and other relevant documents, are available at OSHA's Web page
at http://www.osha.gov.

    For access to the docket to read background documents or comments
received, go to: http://dockets.osha.gov. Contact the OSHA Docket

Office for information about materials not available through the OSHA
Web page and for assistance in using the Web page to locate docket
submissions.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    This proposal applies to shipyard employment. It updates NFPA
standards incorporated by reference in the shipyard fire protection
standard issued by OSHA on September 15, 2004 by replacing the older
versions of NFPA consensus standards with the most current versions (69
FR 55668). A complete discussion of the NFPA standards, a comparison of
the older standards and the newer standards, along with the economic
analysis, and paperwork and state plan discussions are published in the
preamble to the DFR, which is also published in the final rule section
of today's Federal Register.

II. Public Participation

    OSHA requests comments on all issues related to this action. OSHA
also welcomes comments on the Agency's findings that there are not
negative economic or other regulatory impacts of this action on the
regulated community. If OSHA receives no significant adverse comment,
OSHA will publish a Federal Register document confirming the effective
date contained in the companion DFR published in today's Federal
Register and withdrawing this proposed rule. Such confirmation may
include minor stylistic or technical changes to the document. A full
discussion of the nature of a significant adverse comment is contained
in the companion DFR.
    If OSHA receives significant adverse comment on the changes
contained in the companion DFR, OSHA will withdraw the DFR and proceed
with this proposed rule by addressing comments and publishing a new
final rule. If a significant adverse comment is received regarding
certain revisions included in the DFR, but not others, OSHA may (1)
Finalize those changes that did not receive significant adverse
comment, and (2) conduct further rulemaking under this proposed rule
for the changes that did receive significant adverse comment.
    Comments received will be posted without change to http://dockets.osha.gov
, including any personal information provided. OSHA

cautions you about submitting personal information such as social
security numbers and birth dates.

III. List of Subjects for 29 CFR Part 1915

    Fire protection, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by reference,
Longshore and harbor workers, Occupational safety and health, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Shipyards, and Vessels.

IV. Authority and Signature

    This document was prepared under the direction of Edwin G. Foulke,
Jr., Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health,
U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20210. It is issued pursuant to sections 4, 6, and 8 of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657),
Secretary of Labor's Order 5-2002, and 29 CFR part 1911.

    Signed at Washington, DC this 5th day of October, 2006.
Edwin G. Foulke, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary of Labor.

Proposed Amendments to Standards

    OSHA is proposing to amend Part 1915 of Title 29 of the Code of
Federal Regulations as set forth below:

PART 1915--OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS FOR SHIPYARD
EMPLOYMENT

    1. The authority citation for part 1915 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: Sec. 41, Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation
Act (33 U.S.C. 941); secs. 4, 6, and 8 of the Occupational Safety
and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 653, 655, 657); Secretary of
Labor's Order No. 12-71 (36 FR 8754), 8-76 (41 FR 25059), 9-83 (48
FR 35736), 1-90 (55 FR 9033), 6-96 (62 FR 111), 3-2000 (65 FR
50017), or 5-2002 (67 FR 65008) as applicable; 29 CFR Part 1911.

    2. Amend Sec.  1915.5 to revise paragraphs (d)(4)(i), (vi) through
(x), and (xiii) through (xviii) and by removing paragraph (d)(4)(xix)
to read as follows:

Sec.  1915.5  Incorporation by reference.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (4) * * *
    (i) NFPA 1981-2002 Standard on Open-Circuit Self-Contained
Breathing Apparatus for Fire and Emergency Services, IBR approved for
Sec.  1915.505(e)(3)(v).
* * * * *
    (vi) NFPA 10-2002 Standard for Portable Fire Extinguishers, IBR
approved for Sec. Sec.  1915.507(b)(1) and (b)(2).
    (vii) NFPA 14-2003 Standard for the Installation of Standpipe and
Hose Systems, IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  1915.507(b)(2) and (d)(1).
    (viii) NFPA 72-2002 National Fire Alarm Code, IBR approved for
Sec.  1915.507(c)(6).
    (ix) NFPA 13-2002 Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler
Systems, IBR approved for Sec.  1915.507(d)(2).
    (x) NFPA 750-2003 Standard on Water Mist Fire Protection Systems,
IBR approved for Sec.  1915.507(d)(2).
* * * * *
    (xiii) NFPA 11-2005 Standard for Low-, Medium-, and High-Expansion
Foam, IBR approved for Sec.  1915.507(d)(3).
    (xiv) NFPA 17-2002, Standard for Dry Chemical Extinguishing
Systems, IBR approved for Sec.  1915.507(d)(4).
    (xv) NFPA 12-2005, Standard on Carbon Dioxide Extinguishing
Systems, IBR approved for Sec.  1915.507(d)(5).
    (xvi) NFPA 12A-2004, Standard on Halon 1301 Fire Extinguishing
Systems, IBR approved for Sec.  1915.507(d)(5).
    (xvii) NFPA 2001-2004, Standard on Clean Agent Fire Extinguishing
Systems, IBR approved for Sec.  1915.507(d)(5).
    (xviii) NFPA 1403-2002, Standard on Live Fire Training Evolutions,
IBR approved for Sec.  1915.508(d)(8).
    3. Amend Sec.  1915.505 to revise paragraph (e)(3)(v), to read as
follows:

Sec.  1915.505  Fire response.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (v) Provide only SCBA that meet the requirements of NFPA 1981-2002
Standard on Open-Circuit Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus for Fire
and Emergency Services (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  1915.5);
and
* * * * *
    4. Amend Sec.  1915.507 to revise paragraphs (b)(1), (b)(2),
(c)(6), (d)(1), (d)(2), (d)(3), and (d)(5) to read as follows:

Sec.  1915.507  Land-side fire protection system.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (1) The employer must select, install, inspect, maintain, and test
all portable fire extinguishers according to NFPA 10-2002 Standard for
Portable Fire Extinguishers (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
1915.5).
    (2) The employer is permitted to use Class II or Class III hose
systems, in accordance with NFPA 10-2002 (incorporated by reference,
see Sec.  1915.5), as portable fire extinguishers if the employer
selects, installs, inspects, maintains, and tests those systems
according to the specific recommendations in NFPA 14-2003 Standard for
the Installation of Standpipe and Hose Systems (incorporated by
reference, see Sec.  1915.5).
    (c) * * *
    (6) Select, install, inspect, maintain, and test all automatic fire
detection systems and emergency alarms according to NFPA 72-2002
National Fire Alarm Code (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  1915.5)
    (d) * * *
    (1) Standpipe and hose systems according to NFPA 14-2003 Standard
for the Installation of Standpipe and Hose Systems (incorporated by
reference, see Sec.  1915.5);
    (2) Automatic sprinkler systems according to NFPA 25-2002 Standard
for the Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance of Water-based Fire
Protection Systems, (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  1915.5), and
either (i) NFPA 13-2002 Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler
Systems (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  1915.5), or (ii) NFPA
750-2003 Standard on Water Mist Fire Protection Systems (incorporated
by reference, see Sec.  1915.5);
    (3) Fixed extinguishing systems that use water or foam as the
extinguishing agent according to NFPA 15-2001 Standard for Water Spray
Fixed Systems for Fire Protection (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
1915.5) and either NFPA 11-2005 Standard for Low-, Medium-, and High-
Expansion Foam (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  1915.5);
* * * * *
    (5) Fixed extinguishing systems using gas as the extinguishing
agent according to NFPA 12-2005 Standard on Carbon Dioxide
Extinguishing Systems (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  1915.5);
NFPA 12A-2004 Standard on Halon 1301 Fire Extinguishing Systems
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  1915.5); and NFPA 2001-2004
Standard on Clean Agent Fire Extinguishing Systems (incorporated by
reference, see Sec.  1915.5).

[FR Doc. E6-17125 Filed 10-16-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-26-P