[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 127 (Wednesday, July 1, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39649-39652]
[FR Doc No: 2020-14119]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-89155; File No. SR-IEX-2020-09]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Investors Exchange LLC; Notice of
Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a Proposed Rule
Change To Add the Consolidated Audit Trail Industry Member Compliance
Rules to the List of Minor Rule Violations

June 25, 2020.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that, on June 23, 2020, the Investors Exchange LLC (``IEX'' or
the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I
and II below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons and
approving the proposal on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78a.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) under the Act,\4\
and Rule 19b-

4 thereunder,\5\ IEX proposes to add the Consolidated Audit Trail
(``CAT'') industry member compliance rules to the list of minor rule
violations in Rule 9.218. The Exchange requests accelerated approval
and effectiveness of this filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \5\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
website at www.iextrading.com, at the principal office of the Exchange,
and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization
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 add IEX's CAT industry member compliance
rules (the ``CAT Compliance Rules'') to the list of minor rule
violations in Rule 9.218.\6\ This proposal is based upon the Financial
Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (``FINRA'') filing to amend FINRA
Rule 9217 in order to add FINRA's corresponding CAT Compliance Rules to
FINRA's list of rules that are eligible for minor rule violation plan
treatment.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ IEX's minor rule violation plan (``MRVP'') was declared
effective by the Commission on August 3, 2016. See Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 78474 (August 3, 2016), 81 FR 52717 (August
9, 2016) (File No. 4-701).
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88870 (May 14,
2020), 85 FR 30768 (May 20, 2020) (SR-FINRA-2020-013). The proposal
is also based upon the New York Stock Exchange (``NYSE'') filing to
amend NYSE Rule 9217 in order to add NYSE's corresponding CAT
Compliance Rules to NYSE's list of rules that are eligible for MRVP
treatment. See SR-NYSE-2020-51.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Rule Change
    The Exchange adopted the CAT Compliance Rules in the Rule Series
11.600 in order to implement the National Market System Plan Governing
the Consolidated Audit Trail (the ``CAT NMS Plan'' or ``Plan'').\8\ The
CAT NMS Plan was filed by the Plan Participants to comply with Rule 613
of Regulation NMS under the Exchange Act,\9\ and each Plan Participant
accordingly has adopted the same compliance rules in the Exchange's
Rule Series 11.600. The common CAT Compliance Rules adopted by each
Plan Participant are designed to require industry members to comply
with the provisions of the CAT NMS Plan, which broadly calls for
industry members to record and report timely and accurately customer,
order, and trade information relating to activity in NMS Securities and
OTC Equity Securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80256 (March 15,
2017), 82 FR 14526 (March 21, 2017).
    \9\ 17 CFR 242.613.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 9.218 sets forth the list of rules under which a Member \10\
or associated person may be subject to a fine under Rule 9.216(b). Rule
9.216(b) permits the Exchange to impose a fine of up to $2,500 on any
Member or associated person for a minor violation of an eligible rule.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 9.218 to add the CAT Compliance
Rules in the Rule Series 11.600 to the list of rules in Rule 9.218
eligible for disposition pursuant to a minor fine under Rule
9.216(b).\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Rule 1.160(s).
    \11\ FINRA's maximum fine for minor rule violations under FINRA
Rule 9216(b) is also $2,500. Like FINRA, the Exchange, or FINRA on
its behalf, would be able to pursue a fine greater than $2,500 for
violations of the Rule Series 11.600 in a regular disciplinary
proceeding or an acceptance, waiver, and consent (``AWC'') under
Chapter 9 of the IEX Rule Book, as appropriate. Any fine imposed in
excess of $2,500 or not otherwise covered by Rule 19d-1(c)(2) of the
Act would be subject to prompt notice to the Commission pursuant to
Rule 19d-1 under the Act. As noted below, in assessing the
appropriateness of a minor rule fine with respect to CAT Compliance
Rules, the Exchange will be guided by the same factors that FINRA
utilizes. See text accompanying notes 13-14, infra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    IEX is coordinating with FINRA and other Plan Participants to
promote harmonized and consistent enforcement of all the Plan
Participants' CAT Compliance Rules. The Commission recently approved a
Rule 17d-2 Plan under which the regulation of CAT Compliance Rules will
be allocated among Plan Participants to reduce regulatory duplication
for industry members that are members of more than one Participant
(``common members'').\12\ Under the Rule 17d-2 Plan, the regulation of
CAT Compliance Rules with respect to common members that are members of
FINRA is allocated to FINRA. Similarly, under the Rule 17d-2 Plan,
responsibility for common members of multiple other Plan Participants
that are not members of FINRA will be allocated among those other Plan
Participants, including to the Exchange. For those non-common members
who are allocated to IEX pursuant to the Rule 17d-2 Plan, the Exchange
and FINRA entered into a Regulatory Services Agreement (``RSA'')
pursuant to which FINRA will conduct surveillance, investigation,
examination, and enforcement activity in connection with the CAT
Compliance Rules on the Exchange's behalf. IEX understands that the
other exchanges entered into similar RSAs with FINRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88366 (March 12,
2020), 85 FR 15238 (March 17, 2020) (File No. 4-618).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FINRA, in connection with its amendment to FINRA Rule 9217 to make
FINRA's CAT Compliance Rules MRVP eligible, represented that it will
apply MRVP fines for CAT Compliance Rules in the same manner that FINRA
has for its similar existing audit trail-related rules.\13\
Accordingly, in order to promote regulatory consistency, the Exchange,
and FINRA acting on behalf of the Exchange, plan to do the same.
Specifically, application of a MRVP fine with respect to CAT Compliance
Rules will be guided by the same factors that FINRA referenced in its
filing. However, more formal disciplinary proceedings may be warranted
instead of minor rule dispositions in certain circumstances such as
where violations prevent regulatory users of the CAT from performing
their regulatory functions. Where minor rule dispositions are
appropriate, the following factors help guide the determination of fine
amounts:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 88870 (May 14,
2020), 85 FR 30768, 30768-69 (May 20, 2020) (SR-FINRA-2020-013); see
also FINRA Notice to Members 04-19 (March 2004) (providing specific
factors used to inform dispositions for violations of OATS reporting
rules).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Total number of reports that are not submitted or
submitted late;
     The timeframe over which the violations occur;
     Whether violations are batched;
     Whether the violations are the result of the actions of
one individual or the result of faulty systems or procedures;
     Whether the firm has taken remedial measures to correct
the violations;
     Prior minor rule violations within the past 24 months;
     Collateral effects that the failure has on customers; and
     Collateral effects that the failure has on the Exchange's
ability to perform its regulatory function.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See supra note 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Upon effectiveness of this rule change, the Exchange will publish a
regulatory bulletin notifying its

Members of the rule change and the specific factors that will be
considered in connection with assessing minor rule fines described
above.
    For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed
rule change will result in a coordinated, harmonized approach to CAT
compliance rule enforcement across Plan Participants that will be
consistent with the approach FINRA has taken with the CAT rules.
2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the
Act,\15\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5),\16\ in particular, because it is 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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Minor rule fines provide a meaningful sanction for minor or
technical violations of rules when the conduct at issue does not
warrant stronger, immediately reportable disciplinary sanctions. The
inclusion of a rule in the Exchange's MRVP does not minimize the
importance of compliance with the rule, nor does it preclude the
Exchange from choosing to pursue violations of eligible rules through
an AWC if the nature of the violations or prior disciplinary history
warrants more significant sanctions. Rather, the Exchange believes that
the proposed rule change will strengthen the Exchange's ability to
carry out its oversight and enforcement responsibilities in cases where
full disciplinary proceedings are unwarranted in view of the minor
nature of the particular violation. Thus, the option to impose a minor
rule sanction gives the Exchange additional flexibility to administer
its enforcement program in the most effective and efficient manner
while still fully meeting the Exchange's remedial objectives in
addressing violative conduct. Specifically, the proposed rule change is
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices
because it will provide the Exchange the ability to issue a minor rule
fine for violations of the CAT Compliance Rules in the Rule Series
11.600 where a more formal disciplinary action may not be warranted or
appropriate consistent with the approach of other Plan Participants for
the same conduct, and thereby promote regulatory consistency across
self-regulatory organizations
    The Exchange further believes that the proposed changes to Rule
9.218 are consistent with Section 6(b)(6) of the Act,\17\ which
provides that members and persons associated with members shall be
appropriately disciplined for violation of the provisions of the rules
of the exchange, by expulsion, suspension, limitation of activities,
functions, and operations, fine, censure, being suspended or barred
from being associated with a member, or any other fitting sanction. As
noted, the proposed rule change would provide the Exchange ability to
sanction minor or technical violations of the Rule Series 11.600
pursuant to the Exchange's rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange also believes that the proposed changes are
designed to provide a fair procedure for the disciplining of members
and persons associated with members, consistent with Sections 6(b)(7)
and 6(d) of the Act.\18\ Rule 9.216 does not preclude a Member or
associated person from contesting an alleged violation and receiving a
hearing on the matter with the same procedural rights through a
litigated disciplinary proceeding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(7) and 78f(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    IEX does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is not
intended to address competitive issues but rather is concerned solely
with making the CAT Compliance Rules in the Rule Series 11.600 eligible
for disposition pursuant to a MRVP, thereby strengthening the
Exchange's ability to carry out its oversight and enforcement functions
and deter potential violative conduct.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

III. 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-IEX-2020-09 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-IEX-2020-09. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-IEX-2020-09 and should be submitted on
or before July 22, 2020.

IV. Commission's Findings and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of
Proposed Rule Change

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder applicable to a national securities

exchange.\19\ In particular, the Commission finds that the proposed
rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\20\ which
requires that the rules of an exchange be designed to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments and to perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The
Commission also believes that the proposal is consistent with Sections
6(b)(1) and 6(b)(6) of the Act \21\ which require that the rules of an
exchange enforce compliance with, and provide appropriate discipline
for, violations of Commission and Exchange rules. Finally, the
Commission finds that the proposal is consistent with the public
interest, the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act, as required by Rule 19d-1(c)(2) under the
Act,\22\ which governs minor rule violation plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1) and 78f(b)(6).
    \22\ 17 CFR 240.19d-1(c)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated above, the Exchange proposes to add the CAT Compliance
Rules to the list of minor rule violations in Rule 9.218 to be
consistent with the approach FINRA has taken for minor violations of
its corresponding CAT Compliance Rules.\23\ The Commission has already
approved FINRA's treatment of CAT Compliance Rules violations when it
approved the addition of CAT Compliance Rules to FINRA's MRVP.\24\ As
noted in that order, and similarly herein, the Commission believes that
Exchange's treatment of CAT Compliance Rules violations as part of its
MRVP provides a reasonable means of addressing violations that do not
rise to the level of requiring formal disciplinary proceedings, while
providing greater flexibility in handling certain violations. However,
the Commission expects that, as with FINRA, the Exchange will continue
to conduct surveillance with due diligence and make determinations
based on its findings, on a case-by-case basis, regarding whether a
sanction under the rule is appropriate, or whether a violation requires
formal disciplinary action. Accordingly, the Commission believes the
proposal raises no novel or significant issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ As discussed above, the Exchange has entered into a Rule
17d-2 Plan and an RSA with FINRA with respect to the CAT Compliance
Rules. The Commission notes that, unless relieved by the Commission
of its responsibility, as may be the case under the Rule 17d-2 Plan,
the Exchange continues to bear the responsibility for self-
regulatory conduct and liability for self-regulatory failures, not
the self-regulatory organization retained to perform regulatory
functions on the Exchange's behalf pursuant to an RSA. See
Securities Exchange Release No. 61419 (January 26, 2010), 75 FR 5157
(February 1, 2010) (SR-BATS-2009-031), note 93 and accompanying
text.
    \24\ See supra note 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the same reasons discussed above, the Commission finds good
cause, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,\25\ for approving the
proposed rule change prior to the thirtieth day after the date of
publication of the notice of the filing thereof in the Federal
Register. The proposal merely adds the CAT Compliance Rules to the
Exchange's MRVP and harmonizes its application with FINRA's application
of CAT Compliance Rules under its own MRVP. Accordingly, the Commission
believes that a full notice-and-comment period is not necessary before
approving the proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
\26\ and Rule 19d-1(c)(2) thereunder,\27\ that the proposed rule change
(SR-IEX-2020-09) be, and hereby is, approved on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \27\ 17 CFR 240.19d-1(c)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-14119 Filed 6-30-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 50 (Friday, March 14, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14402-14404]
[FR Doc No: 2014-05512]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2014-0118; FRL-9907-77-Region 7]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of Iowa

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving revisions
to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the State of Iowa. These
revisions will amend the SIP to include revisions to Iowa air quality
rule, Chapter 33, ``Special Regulations and Construction Permit
Requirements for Major Stationary Sources--Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) of Air Quality.'' This rule amendment makes the
state regulation consistent with the Federal regulation for the fine
Particulate Matter (PM2.5) PSD program. This revision will
amend source obligation provisions as they apply to recordkeeping and
will provide a mechanism to allow industry to request rescission of a
PSD permit, both of which match the Federal regulations. This action is
also consistent with the state's request to not include, into the SIP,
provisions relating to Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and Significant
Monitoring Concentrations (SMCs). These provisions were vacated and
remanded by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia on
January 22, 2013.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective May 13, 2014, without
further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by April 14, 2014.
If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal of
the direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that
the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2014-0118, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or Hand Delivery: Amy Algoe-Eakin, Environmental Protection
Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard,
Lenexa, Kansas 66219.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-
2014-0118. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit through www.regulations.gov or
email information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email
comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your
email address will be automatically captured and included as part of
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy
form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the
Environmental Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch,
11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219. The Regional Office's
official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30
p.m. excluding legal holidays. The interested persons wanting to
examine these documents should make an appointment with the office at
least 24 hours in advance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Algoe-Eakin, Environmental
Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner
Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' or
``our'' refer to EPA. This section provides additional information by
addressing the following:

I. What is being addressed in this document?
II. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?
III. What action is EPA taking?

I. What is being addressed in this document?

    EPA is approving revisions into the SIP to include amendments to
the Iowa air quality rules as they apply to Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) of Air Quality.
    The rules are amended to correspond with the Federal regulation for
implementation of the PM2.5 PSD program as identified in 40
CFR 52.21.
    The following definitions are revised to match the Federal
regulation: Baseline area; baseline date; enforceable permit condition;
Federally enforceable; regulated New Source Review (NSR) pollutant, and
significant.
    Revisions adopted by reference include ambient air increments that
include thresholds for PM2.5, PSD exemptions to incorporate
PM2.5, source impact analysis requirements to include
PM2.5, and requirements for sources that impact Federal
Class I areas to include PM2.5. Source obligation provisions
are revised to match current Federal PSD regulations. This revision
also clarifies the conditions whereby source owners and operators must
keep records and the specific records that must be kept. For the
purposes of record keeping, the Federal definition of ``reasonable
possibility'' has been added. A rule has been added to establish
provisions for rescinding a PSD permit and is commensurate with the
Federal provisions.
    This action is also consistent with the state's request to not
include the SIP provisions relating to Significant Impact Levels and
Significant Monitoring Concentrations. On January 22, 2013, the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia vacated and remanded the
provisions at 40 CFR 51.166(k)(2) and

52.21(k)(2) concerning implementation of the PM2.5 SILs and
vacated the provisions at 40 CFR 51.166(i)(5)(i)(c) and
52.21(i)(5)(i)(c) (adding the PM2.5 SMC) that were
promulgated as part of the October 20, 2010 rule, ``Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) for Particulate Matter less than 2.5
Micrometers (PM2.5)--Increments, Significant Impact Levels
and Significant Monitoring Concentrations,'' 75 FR 64864.

II. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?

    The state submittal has met the public notice requirements for SIP
submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submittal also
satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. The
revision meets the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA, including
section 110 and implementing regulations.

III. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is approving the state's request to revise the SIP to include
amendments to the Iowa air quality rules as they apply to PSD of Air
Quality. The rule is amended to correspond with the final Federal
regulation necessary for PM2.5 implementation for the PSD
program. This revision also revises source obligation provisions as
they apply to recordkeeping, and provides a mechanism to allow industry
to request rescission of a PSD permit, both of which will match federal
regulations. Per the state's July 23, 2013 request, EPA is not
including provisions of the 2010 PM2.5 PSD--Increments, SILs
and SMCs rule (75 FR 64865, October 20, 2010) relating to SILs and SMCs
that were affected by the January 22, 2013 U.S. Court of Appeals
decision into SIP.
    We are processing this action as a direct final action because the
revisions make routine changes to the existing rules which are
noncontroversial. Therefore, we do not anticipate any adverse comments.
Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on part of this rule
and if that part can be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may
adopt as final those parts of the rule that are not the subject of an
adverse comment.

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 May 13, 2014. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are
encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of
proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules
section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate
petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can
withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed
rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Air quality,
Prevention of significant deterioration, Incorporation by reference,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: February 28, 2014.
Karl Brooks,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
    Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart Q--Iowa

0
2. Section 52.820(c) is amended by revising in the table, under Chapter
33, the entry for 567-33.3 to read as follows:

52.820  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                                              EPA-Approved Iowa Regulations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                State
           Iowa citation                    Title          effective date             EPA approval date                         Explanation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Iowa Department of Natural Resources Environmental Protection Commission [567]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Chapter 33--Special Regulations and Construction Permit Requirements for Major Stationary Sources--Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) of Air
                                                                         Quality
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
567-33.3..........................  Special construction          9/12/12  3/14/14 [Insert FR page number where    Provisions of the 2010 PM2.5 PSD--
                                     permit requirement                     the document begins].                   Increments, SILs and SMCs rule (75
                                     for major stationary                                                           FR 64865, October 20, 2010) relating
                                     sources in areas                                                               to SILs and SMCs that were affected
                                     designated                                                                     by the January 22, 2013 U.S. Court
                                     attainment or                                                                  of Appeals decision are not SIP
                                     unclassified (PSD).                                                            approved.
                                                                                In addition, we have not approved
                                                                                Iowa's rule incorporating EPA's 2007
                                                                                revision of the definition of
                                                                                ``chemical processing plants'' (the
                                                                                ``Ethanol Rule,'' 72 FR 24060 (May
                                                                                1, 2007) or EPA's 2008 ``fugitive
                                                                                emissions rule,'' 73 FR 77882
                                                                                (December 19, 2008).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2014-05512 Filed 3-13-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


PCWP  Overview PCWP  Overview Presented to: OMB Presented to: OMB Presented by: Mary Tom Kissell Presented by: Mary Tom Kissell Date: 08 October 2003 Date: 08 October 2003 1 Today  overview of impacts, rule, significant Today  overview of impacts, rule, significant comments, and possible risk option comments, and possible risk option While developing rule

While developing rule

Focused on cost reductions Focused on cost reductions Provided flexible compliance options for Provided flexible compliance options for impacted facilities impacted facilities Made legally defensible decisions Made legally defensible decisions Worked closely with industry trade associations Worked closely with industry trade associations Schedule Schedule Background Background 2 Costs Costs capital costs  $ 479 million capital costs  $ 479 million annual costs  $ 142 million ( worst case)

annual costs  $ 142 million ( worst case)

cost per ton HAP ( VOC)  $ 13,000 ($ 5,000)

cost per ton HAP ( VOC)  $ 13,000 ($ 5,000)

Emissions Emissions HAP reduction  11,000 tpy HAP reduction  11,000 tpy VOC reduction  27,000 tpy VOC reduction  27,000 tpy NOx increases due to control device NOx increases due to control device Impacts without Risk Option Impacts without Risk Option 3 Impacts without Risk Option Impacts without Risk Option ( continued)

( continued)

Economic impacts

Economic impacts

$ 134 million in social costs $ 134 million in social costs $ 8.5 million in quantifiable benefits $ 8.5 million in quantifiable benefits Predicted closures at proposal  one line at Predicted closures at proposal  one line at one facility ( small business)

one facility ( small business) 4 Small Business Small Business Acceptable economic impacts and no Acceptable economic impacts and no SISNOSE SISNOSE 17 of 52 companies ( 32%) are small 17 of 52 companies ( 32%) are small businesses businesses Incur 8% of costs Incur 8% of costs Only 3 small firms with compliance costs Only 3 small firms with compliance costs greater than or equal to 3% of their sales greater than or equal to 3% of their sales Seven small firms with sales ot cost ratios Seven small firms with sales ot cost ratios between 1 and 3%

between 1 and 3% 5 Description of Industry Description of Industry Industry produces several types of building Industry produces several types of building materials made from wood that is glued or materials made from wood that is glued or mixed with resin, and pressed mixed with resin, and pressed Wood slices  e. g., plywood and veneer,

Wood slices  e. g., plywood and veneer,

engineered wood products engineered wood products Wood flakes  e. g., oriented strandboard,

Wood flakes  e. g., oriented strandboard,

parallel strand lumber parallel strand lumber Wood particles  e. g., particleboard,

Wood particles  e. g., particleboard,

hardboard, fiberboard hardboard, fiberboard 6 Description of Industry Description of Industry ( continued)

( continued)

Dryers and presses two most significant Dryers and presses two most significant emission points emission points Formaldehyde, methanol, acetaldehyde,

Formaldehyde, methanol, acetaldehyde,

propionaldehyde, acrolein, and phenol propionaldehyde, acrolein, and phenol account for 96% of emissions account for 96% of emissions Emissions originate from wood and resins Emissions originate from wood and resins Other pollutants include PM, VOC, and small Other pollutants include PM, VOC, and small amounts of benzene and metals amounts of benzene and metals HAP emitted linked to lung damage, cancer,

HAP emitted linked to lung damage, cancer,

and other adverse health effects and other adverse health effects 7 Many process units have MACT controls Many process units have MACT controls MACT control is capture + control of 90%

MACT control is capture + control of 90%

11% to 71% of dryers have MACT controls 11% to 71% of dryers have MACT controls 15% of presses have MACT controls 15% of presses have MACT controls Most MACT controls are RTOs Most MACT controls are RTOs Other MACT controls: RCOs, biofilters, process Other MACT controls: RCOs, biofilters, process incineration incineration All existing RTOs can achieve 90 percent All existing RTOs can achieve 90 percent Many RTOs can achieve 95+ percent Many RTOs can achieve 95+ percent Existing Controls Existing Controls 8 All process units can use

All process units can use

Add on controls, e. g., RTO, RCO, biofilter, and Add on controls, e. g., RTO, RCO, biofilter, and process incineration process incineration Emissions averaging Emissions averaging Some process units can use a Some process units can use a production based compliance option production based compliance option ( pollution prevention option)

( pollution prevention option)

Compliance Options Compliance Options 9 Emissions averaging compliance option Emissions averaging compliance option Production based compliance options Production based compliance options ( PBCO) ( industry calls these PBELs)

( PBCO) ( industry calls these PBELs)

Most Significant Nonrisk Issues Most Significant Nonrisk Issues 10 Emissions Averaging  What We Emissions Averaging  What We Proposed Proposed Simple system of emissions debits and credits Simple system of emissions debits and credits Allows facility to control emissions from Allows facility to control emissions from unregulated process unit and under control unregulated process unit and under control emissions from a regulated process unit emissions from a regulated process unit Based on actual emissions Based on actual emissions No additional emission reductions required to No additional emission reductions required to participate ( no discount factor)

participate ( no discount factor)

No demonstration hazard or risk required No demonstration hazard or risk required Only process units with add on controls can Only process units with add on controls can generate credits generate credits 11 EA  Control Efficiency EA  Control Efficiency Proposed credit/ debit based on 90% control Proposed credit/ debit based on 90% control Industry requests credit for > 90% control Industry requests credit for > 90% control while using MACT technology while using MACT technology We recommend maintaining 90%

We recommend maintaining 90%

Higher control efficiency for emissions Higher control efficiency for emissions averaging brings into question MACT limits,

averaging brings into question MACT limits,

especially for new sources especially for new sources Should use same value for credit and debit Should use same value for credit and debit 12 EA  Credits for P2, Shutdowns, &

EA  Credits for P2, Shutdowns, &

Downtime Downtime Proposed that only process units with add on Proposed that only process units with add on controls can generate emissions credits controls can generate emissions credits Industry wants to generate emissions credits Industry wants to generate emissions credits for

for  Pollution prevention projects Pollution prevention projects Production shutdowns Production shutdowns Unused portion of downtime allowance Unused portion of downtime allowance 13 EA  Credits for P2, Shutdowns, &

EA  Credits for P2, Shutdowns, &

Downtime Downtime ( continued)

( continued)

We recommend not allowing other than We recommend not allowing other than add on controls to generate emission credits add on controls to generate emission credits Pollution prevention Pollution prevention Can be difficult to establish a baseline Can be difficult to establish a baseline Do not agree on what is pollution prevention Do not agree on what is pollution prevention Introduces uncertainty in average and may Introduces uncertainty in average and may erode rationale against including a discount erode rationale against including a discount factor factor Shutdowns and unused downtime allowance Shutdowns and unused downtime allowance Do not reflect MACT Do not reflect MACT 14 EA  HAP Considered EA  HAP Considered Proposed that emissions average based on six HAP Proposed that emissions average based on six HAP Industry wants to consider only one pollutant:

Industry wants to consider only one pollutant:

methanol, formaldehyde, or THC methanol, formaldehyde, or THC We recommend basing compliance on six HAP We recommend basing compliance on six HAP Predominant HAP varies with process unit and Predominant HAP varies with process unit and one of six we specified will always be one of the one of six we specified will always be one of the predominant predominant Looking at all six considers 96% of emissions by Looking at all six considers 96% of emissions by mass mass No hazard or risk assessment required No hazard or risk assessment required 15 Process unit emission rate limit for 10 types Process unit emission rate limit for 10 types of process units of process units Developed option to encourage pollution Developed option to encourage pollution prevention and innovation prevention and innovation Proposed limits based on 90% reduction Proposed limits based on 90% reduction from the highest emission rate which achieve from the highest emission rate which achieve less emissions reduction than MACT less emissions reduction than MACT Applies to uncontrolled emissions Applies to uncontrolled emissions Results in more emissions than MACT floor Results in more emissions than MACT floor PBCO  What We Proposed PBCO  What We Proposed 16 PBCO  Limits PBCO  Limits Proposed limits based on 90% of the highest Proposed limits based on 90% of the highest emission rate emission rate Industry suggested higher emission limits Industry suggested higher emission limits based on theoretical worst case emissions based on theoretical worst case emissions Industry data we used to set limits was based Industry data we used to set limits was based on maximum operating conditions on maximum operating conditions We recommend no change to proposed We recommend no change to proposed PBCO limits PBCO limits Moves us further from MACT Moves us further from MACT 17 Green Rotary Particle Dryers RTO 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 Uncont rolled 90% MACT cont rol Proposed PBCO ( 0.058)

AF& PA PBCO ( 0.15) 18 Rotary Strand Dryers RTO RTO 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 Uncont rolled 90% MACT cont rol Proposed PBCO ( 0.18)

AF& PA PBCO ( 0.54) 19 Proposed PBCO limits apply to emissions Proposed PBCO limits apply to emissions from the process from the process Industry wants us to allow add on controls to Industry wants us to allow add on controls to meet PBCO limits meet PBCO limits We recommend no changes to limits We recommend no changes to limits Inconsistent for a pollution prevention Inconsistent for a pollution prevention alternative alternative Less HAP reduction Less HAP reduction Does not eliminate NOx formed by combustion Does not eliminate NOx formed by combustion PBCO  Using Add on Controls to PBCO  Using Add on Controls to Comply Comply 20 Combining EA and PBCO Combining EA and PBCO Proposed emissions averaging and PBCO as Proposed emissions averaging and PBCO as separate compliance options separate compliance options Industry wants to use emissions averaging to Industry wants to use emissions averaging to meet PBCO limits meet PBCO limits We recommend the options remain separate We recommend the options remain separate Not pollution prevention Not pollution prevention Emissions averaging already allows a facility to Emissions averaging already allows a facility to generate an emission credit controlling part of generate an emission credit controlling part of an exhaust stream and achieves MACT an exhaust stream and achieves MACT 21 Why Consider Risk in PCWP Why Consider Risk in PCWP MACT?

MACT?

PCWP rule has relatively high cost PCWP rule has relatively high cost PCWP proposal preamble discussed PCWP proposal preamble discussed possibility of including a risk option in final possibility of including a risk option in final PCWP rule to lower costs PCWP rule to lower costs 22 How We Could Implement a Risk How We Could Implement a Risk Option in PCWP MACT Option in PCWP MACT Use 112( c)( 1) and 112( c)( 9) to define and delist a Use 112( c)( 1) and 112( c)( 9) to define and delist a subcategory of low risk facilities subcategory of low risk facilities Delist low risk subcategory with final rule Delist low risk subcategory with final rule Specific facilities would not be identified Specific facilities would not be identified Facility demonstrates it is low risk Facility demonstrates it is low risk Look up tables, or Look up tables, or Site specific risk assessment Site specific risk assessment Facility not part of low risk subcategory until emission Facility not part of low risk subcategory until emission rates are established in its Title V permit rates are established in its Title V permit Establish low risk status by compliance date Establish low risk status by compliance date 23 Basis of Low Risk Demonstration Basis of Low Risk Demonstration Include all HAP emitted by PCWP source category Include all HAP emitted by PCWP source category Consider cancer and non cancer effects Consider cancer and non cancer effects Consider ecological health and effects on threatened Consider ecological health and effects on threatened and endangered species are not a concern and endangered species are not a concern 24 Basis of Low Risk Demonstration Basis of Low Risk Demonstration ( continued)

( continued)

Base URE and RfC values on OAQPS website ( note Base URE and RfC values on OAQPS website ( note hierachy)

hierachy)

Emission rates for each HAP Emission rates for each HAP Rule will specify acceptable measurement and Rule will specify acceptable measurement and estimation procedures estimation procedures 25 Look up Tables Look up Tables Two look up tables would provide the allowable tox weighted Two look up tables would provide the allowable tox weighted emission rate limits ( one for carcinogens and one for emission rate limits ( one for carcinogens and one for non carcinogens)

non carcinogens)

Rule would specify methods for calculating tox weighted Rule would specify methods for calculating tox weighted emission rates emission rates Tox weighted emission rates must be less than emission limits Tox weighted emission rates must be less than emission limits in look up tables to be considered low risk in look up tables to be considered low risk Maximum tox weighted emission rate allowable for Maximum tox weighted emission rate allowable for carcinogens must impose < 1 in a million cancer risk, and carcinogens must impose < 1 in a million cancer risk, and Maximum tox weighted emission rate allowable for Maximum tox weighted emission rate allowable for non carcinogens must impose HI < x non carcinogens must impose HI < x Need to decide what HI limit should be Need to decide what HI limit should be 26 Example Look up Table Example Look up Table Stack Height ( ft) Minimum Distance to Fenceline ( m)

20 50 100 200 500 20   2.0 X 10  7 5.8 X 10  7 1.2 X 10  6 40  6.2 X 10  7 7.8 X 10  7 1.5 X 10  6 3.5 X 10  6 80 6.6 X 10  6 6.6 X 10  6 6.6 X 10  6 6.6 X 10  6 7.0 X 10  6 100 9.0 X 10  6 9.0 X 10  6 9.0 X 10  6 9.0 X 10  6 9.3 X 10  6 Maximum Allowable Toxicity weighted Carcinogen Emission Rate Units: T/ yr*( ug/ m33)  1 27 Site specific Risk Assessment Site specific Risk Assessment Risk must be < 1 in a million for carcinogens, and Risk must be < 1 in a million for carcinogens, and Total HI must be < x for non carcinogens Total HI must be < x for non carcinogens Risk Assessment Guidance currently under Risk Assessment Guidance currently under development development 28 Review of Low Risk Demonstration Review of Low Risk Demonstration Permitting authority reviews and Permitting authority reviews and approves/ denies approves/ denies Emission rates included in Title V permit to Emission rates included in Title V permit to ensure facility remains in low risk ensure facility remains in low risk subcategory subcategory 29 Risk Option: Analysis Risk Option: Analysis Of 188 facilities modeled:

Of 188 facilities modeled:

111 have cancer risk < 1 in a million 111 have cancer risk < 1 in a million Of these;

Of these;

52 have HI < 0.2 52 have HI < 0.2 83 have HI < 0.5 83 have HI < 0.5 94 have HI < 0.8 94 have HI < 0.8 97 have HI < 1.0 97 have HI < 1.0 111 have HI < 10.0 111 have HI < 10.0 max HI ( of the low cancer risk facilities) is 3.1 max HI ( of the low cancer risk facilities) is 3.1 30 HI limit less than Total Capital Costs ($ MM) Total Annual Cost ($ MM) Total HAP Reduction ( tpy) Total THC Reduction ( tpy)

0.2 $ 427 $ 126 10,206 23,214 0.5 $ 370 $ 109 9,363 19,457 0.8 $ 347 $ 102 9,016 17,773 1.0 $ 340 $ 101 8,815 17,607 10.0 $ 302 $ 90 8,037 15,894 No risk option $ 479 $ 142 11,000 27,000 Impacts of HI Limit on Costs and Emissions Impacts of HI Limit on Costs and Emissions 31 Commenters: Using 112( c) to Delist Commenters: Using 112( c) to Delist a Low risk Subcategory a Low risk Subcategory AF& PA  Congress gave EPA broad authority to delist low risk AF& PA  Congress gave EPA broad authority to delist low risk subcategory subcategory NRDC NRDC Creating and delisting is allowable for operationally similar Creating and delisting is allowable for operationally similar sources and cannot be based on risk sources and cannot be based on risk Cannot implement on a case by case site specific basis Cannot implement on a case by case site specific basis because Congress rejected doing that under 112( d)( 4)

because Congress rejected doing that under 112( d)( 4)

requiring that for subcategory to be delisted, each facility in requiring that for subcategory to be delisted, each facility in the subcategory must be low risk the subcategory must be low risk States  mixed opinions States  mixed opinions 32 Commenters: HI Value Limit Commenters: HI Value Limit AF& PA  supports HI > 1 and suggested AF& PA  supports HI > 1 and suggested going as high as 10 going as high as 10 RfC health benchmark is highly protective and RfC health benchmark is highly protective and meets CAA " ample margin of safety"

meets CAA " ample margin of safety"

No legal obligation or policy reason to consider No legal obligation or policy reason to consider background or multipathway exposures background or multipathway exposures EPA has existing regulations to address other EPA has existing regulations to address other sources sources Multipathway exposure is insignificant for Multipathway exposure is insignificant for PCWP PCWP 33 Commenters: HI Value Limit Commenters: HI Value Limit ( continued)

( continued)

HQ's for chemical mixtures should not be HQ's for chemical mixtures should not be summed summed NRDC NRDC Should consider background concentration Should consider background concentration Cannot rely on blanket assumptions about Cannot rely on blanket assumptions about exposure exposure NATA not designed or precise enough to use NATA not designed or precise enough to use for background estimates for background estimates States  Opinions vary States  Opinions vary 34 Commenters: HAP Evaluated Commenters: HAP Evaluated AF& PA AF& PA Consider only most prevalent HAP Consider only most prevalent HAP Industry analysis demonstrates some Industry analysis demonstrates some compounds will never drive risk compounds will never drive risk NRDC  No direct comment, but have NRDC  No direct comment, but have commented on using subset of HAP as commented on using subset of HAP as surrogates surrogates States  Did not comment States  Did not comment 35 Commenters: Ecological Effects Commenters: Ecological Effects AF& PA AF& PA Supports broad definition of " adverse Supports broad definition of " adverse environmental impact"

environmental impact"

No risks to ecological receptors at HI of 1.0 No risks to ecological receptors at HI of 1.0 NRDC  CAA requires EPA to consider all NRDC  CAA requires EPA to consider all ways a pollutant could affect human health ways a pollutant could affect human health and the environment, including deposition,

and the environment, including deposition,

persistence, and bioaccumulation persistence, and bioaccumulation States  Ecological risks must be addressed States  Ecological risks must be addressed 36 Commenters: Implementation Commenters: Implementation Burden for States Burden for States AF& PA AF& PA No significant increase in burden No significant increase in burden Increases could be offset by fees Increases could be offset by fees NRDC  Did not comment NRDC  Did not comment States States Do not have resources to implement Do not have resources to implement Can reject delegation Can reject delegation 37


38 Table 5d. Summary of Federal Burden for the Carbon Black Production Source Category Labor hours Dollars Year after promulgation Existing New Total Existing New Total sources sources sources sources Year 1 540 0 540 $ 18,095 $ 0 $ 18,095 Year 2 485 0 485 16,247 0 16,247 Year 3 694 0 694 23,254 0 23,254 Annual average 573 0 573 $ 19,199 $ 0 $ 19,199


[Federal Register: April 16, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 72)]
[Notices]
[Page 18971-18972]
[DOCID:fr16ap07-58]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 4851-005]

Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Notice of Application Tendered
for Filing With the Commission, Soliciting Additional Study Requests,
and Establishing Procedural Schedule for Relicensing and a Deadline for
Submission of Final Amendments

April 10, 2007.
    Take notice that the following transmission line only project
application has been filed with the Commission and is available for
public inspection.
    a. Type of Application: New License for Transmission Line Only
Project.
    b. Project No.: P-4851-005.

    c. Date Filed: March 30, 2007.
    d. Applicant: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    e. Name of Project: Sly Creek Transmission Line Project.
    f. Location: The Sly Creek Transmission Line Project is located in
the Sierra Nevada Range, Butte County, California. The project is
located about 15 miles east of Oroville, California and is not located
within any designated cities, towns, subdivisions or Indian
reservations. The project affects less than 2 acres of federal lands
administered by the Plumas National Forest.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act 16 U.S.C. 791(a)-825(r).
    h. Applicant Contact: Forrest Sullivan, Project Manager, Pacific
Gas and Electric Company, 5555 Florin-Perkins Road, Building 500,
Sacramento, CA, 95826. Tel:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: John Mudre,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    j. Cooperating Agencies: We are asking Federal, state, local, and
tribal agencies with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect
to environmental issues to cooperate with us in the preparation of the
environmental document. Agencies who would like to request cooperating
status should follow the instructions for filing such requests
described in item l below. Cooperating agencies should note the
Commission's policy that agencies that cooperate in the preparation of
the environmental document cannot also intervene. See, 94 FERC ] 61,076
(2001).
    k. Study Request Deadline: Pursuant to Section 4.32(b)(7) of 18 CFR
of the Commission's regulations, if any resource agency, Indian Tribe,
or person believes that an additional scientific study should be
conducted in order to form an adequate factual basis for a complete
analysis of the application on its merit, the resource agency, Indian
Tribe, or person must file a request for a study with the Commission
not later than 60 days from the date of filing of the application, and
serve a copy of the request on the applicant.
    l. Deadline for filing requests for cooperating agency status and
additional study requests: May 29, 2007.
    All documents (original and eight copies) should be filed with:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    Additional study requests and requests for cooperating agency
status may be filed electronically via the Internet in lieu of paper.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings. See 18 CFR
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
(http://www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-Filing'' link.

    m. Status: This application has not been accepted for filing and is
not ready for environmental analysis. We are not soliciting motions to
intervene, protests, or final terms and conditions at this time.
    n. Project Description: The Sly Creek Transmission Line Project is
a constructed transmission line only project that transmits electricity
5.4 miles from the Sly Creek Powerhouse (owned and operated by the
South Feather Water and Power Agency under FERC Project No. 2088) to
Pacific Gas and Electric Company's Woodleaf-Kanaka Junction
Transmission Line Project (FERC Project No. 2281). The Sly Creek
Powerhouse is a component of the South Feather Power Project which is a
water supply/power project constructed in the late 1950s/early 1960s.
The transmission line project consists of an existing single-circuit,
115 kV transmission line, supported primarily on wood-pole, H-frame
structures within a 75-foot right-of-way, and appurtenant facilities.
    o. Application Availability: A copy of the application is available
for review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be
viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the

``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, contact FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is
also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item h
above.
    You may also register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp
 to be notified via e-mail of new filings and

issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
contact FERC Online Support.
    p. Consultation: With this notice, we are initiating consultation
with the California State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), as
required by Sec.  106, National Historic Preservation Act, and the
regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, 36, CFR,
at Sec.  800.4.
    q. Procedural schedule and final amendments: The application will
be processed according to the following schedule. Revisions to the
schedule will be made as appropriate.

    Issue Deficiency or Acceptance letter: May 2007.
    Issue Scoping Document for comments: June 2007.
    Hold Scoping Meetings/Site Visit: June 2007.
    Request Additional Information, if needed: July 2007.
    Notice of application ready for environmental analysis: August
2007.
    Notice of the availability of the EA: February 2008.

    Final amendments to the application must be filed with the
Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of the notice
of ready for environmental analysis.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-7162 Filed 4-13-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 247 (Thursday, December 27, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 66631-66635]
[FR Doc No: 2018-27903]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 81

[EPA-R05-OAR-2018-0368; EPA-R05-OAR-2018-0556; FRL-9988-38-Region 5]

Air Plan Approval; Illinois; Indiana; Revised Designation of
Illinois and Indiana 2012 PM2.5 Unclassifiable Areas

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving
Illinois' May 8, 2018 request to revise the designation for the entire
State of Illinois from unclassifiable to unclassifiable/attainment and
Indiana's July 3, 2018 request to revise the designation for the
Indiana portions of the Chicago IL-IN and Louisville KY-IN areas from
unclassifiable to unclassifiable/attainment for the 2012 primary and
secondary annual fine particulate matter (PM2.5) National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). EPA is approving these requests
because valid, quality-assured, and certified ambient air monitoring
data show that the PM2.5 monitors in the areas are meeting
the 2012 primary and secondary annual PM2.5 NAAQS.

DATES: This final rule is effective on January 28, 2019.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2018-0368 (Illinois) or EPA-R05-OAR-2018-0556
(Indiana). All documents in the docket are listed on the
www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
through www.regulations.gov or at the Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We recommend
that you telephone Michelle Becker, Life Scientist, at<PHONE_NUMBER>
before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michelle Becker, Life Scientist, at
(312) 886-3901, Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:

I. Background
II. What action is EPA taking?
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On December 14, 2012, EPA revised the primary annual NAAQS for
PM2.5 to a level of 12 micrograms per cubic meter ([micro]g/
m\3\), based on a 3-year average of annual mean PM2.5
concentrations. See 78 FR 3085 (January 15, 2013). EPA established the
standard based on significant evidence and numerous health studies
demonstrating that serious health effects are associated with exposures
to particulate matter.
    The process for designating areas following promulgation of a new
or revised NAAQS is contained in section 107(d)(1) of the Clean Air Act
(CAA). On January 15, 2015 (80 FR 2206) and April 7, 2015 (80 FR
18535), EPA designated areas across the country as nonattainment,
unclassifiable, or unclassifiable/attainment for the PM2.5
NAAQS based upon air quality monitoring data from monitors for calendar
years 2011-2013 or 2012-2014.
    In the first action, EPA designated the entire State of Illinois,
including the multi-State areas of Chicago, IL-IN and St. Louis, MO-IL
as unclassifiable because the ambient air quality monitoring sites
lacked complete data for the relevant periods, which were from 2011-
2013. Therefore, EPA could not determine, based on available
information, whether those areas were meeting the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS. EPA also designated the Louisville, KY-IN area as nonattainment,
based on monitoring data for Indiana counties Clark and Floyd for 2011-
2013 showing that a monitor in Clark County had a design value above
the standard.
    However, in the April 7, 2015 (80 FR 18535) action, EPA changed the
designation for Louisville, KY-IN area from nonattainment to
unclassifiable due to invalid monitoring data for Jefferson County,
Kentucky.
    On May 8, 2018, Illinois submitted a request to revise the
designation for the entire State of Illinois from unclassifiable to
unclassifiable/attainment and on July 3, 2018 Indiana submitted a
request to revise the designation for the Indiana portions of the
Chicago IL-IN and Louisville KY-IN areas from unclassifiable to
unclassifiable/attainment for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
    In a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on October 9,
2018 (83 FR 50556), EPA proposed to approve Illinois' request to revise
the entire State of Illinois from unclassifiable to unclassifiable/
attainment, and Indiana's request to similarly revise the designation
for the Indiana portions of the Chicago IL-IN and Louisville KY-IN, for
the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The details of Illinois' and
Indiana's submittals and the rationale for EPA's actions are further
explained in the NPRM. EPA did not receive any adverse comments on the
proposed action.

II. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is approving Illinois' May 8, 2018 request to revise the
designation of the entire State from unclassifiable to unclassifiable/
attainment as well as Indiana's July 3, 2018 request to similarly
revise the designation of the Indiana portions of the Louisville and
Chicago areas for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. The revised
designations change the legal designation, found at 40 CFR part 81, for
the Illinois and Indiana counties of Lake, Porter, Clark, and Floyd
from unclassifiable to unclassifiable/attainment for the 2012 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission

that complies with the provisions of the CAA 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 Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by February 25, 2019. 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 section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Particulate
matter.

    Dated: December 12, 2018.
Cathy Stepp,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    40 CFR part 81 is amended as follows:

PART 81--DESIGNATION OF AREAS FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING PURPOSES

0
1. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. Section 81.314 is amended by removing the table entitled
``Illinois--2012 24-Hour PM2.5 NAAQS'' and adding the table
entitled ``Illinois--2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS'' in its place
to read as follows:

Sec.  81.314  Illinois.

* * * * *

                                                            Illinois--2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS
                                                                        [Primary]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Designation                                               Classification
                                 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Designated area \1\          Date
                                    \2\                    Type                               Date \2\                               Type
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Chicago, IL-IN:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cook County.....................  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
DuPage County...................  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Grundy County (part)............  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Goose Lake and Aux Sable          .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
 Townships.
Kane County.....................  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Kendall County (part)...........  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Oswego Township.................  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Lake County.....................  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
McHenry County..................  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Will County.....................  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Davenport-Moline-Rock Island, IL:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rock Island County..............  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Henry County....................  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.

Mercer County...................  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    St. Louis, MO-IL:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Madison County..................  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Monroe County...................  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Randolph County (part)..........  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Baldwin Village.................  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
St. Clair County................  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                     Rest of State:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adams County....................  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Alexander County................  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Bond County.....................  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Boone County....................  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Brown County....................  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Bureau County...................  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Calhoun County..................  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Carroll County..................  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Cass County.....................  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Champaign County................  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Christian County................  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Clark County....................  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Clay County.....................  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Clinton County..................  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Coles County....................  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Crawford County.................  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Cumberland County...............  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
DeKalb County...................  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
De Witt County..................  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Douglas County..................  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Edgar County....................  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Edwards County..................  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Effingham County................  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Fayette County..................  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Ford County.....................  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Franklin County.................  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Fulton County...................  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Gallatin County.................  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Greene County...................  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Grundy County (remainder).......  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Hamilton County.................  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Hancock County..................  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Hardin County...................  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Henderson County................  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Iroquois County.................  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Jackson County..................  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Jasper County...................  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Jefferson County................  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Jersey County...................  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Jo Daviess County...............  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Johnson County..................  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Kankakee County.................  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Kendall County (remainder)......  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Knox County.....................  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
La Salle County.................  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Lawrence County.................  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Lee County......................  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Livingston County...............  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Logan County....................  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
McDonough County................  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
McLean County...................  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Macon County....................  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Macoupin County.................  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Marion County...................  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Marshall County.................  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Mason County....................  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Massac County...................  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.

Menard County...................  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Montgomery County...............  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Morgan County...................  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Moultrie County.................  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Ogle County.....................  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Peoria County...................  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Perry County....................  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Piatt County....................  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Pike County.....................  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Pope County.....................  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Pulaski County..................  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Putnam County...................  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Randolph County (remainder).....  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Richland County.................  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Saline County...................  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Sangamon County.................  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Schuyler County.................  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Scott County....................  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Shelby County...................  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Stark County....................  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Stephenson County...............  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Tazewell County.................  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Union County....................  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Vermilion County................  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Wabash County...................  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Warren County...................  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Washington County...............  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Wayne County....................  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
White County....................  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Whiteside County................  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Williamson County...............  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Winnebago County................  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
Woodford County.................  .......  Unclassifiable/Attainment.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes Indian Country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified.
\2\ This date is January 28, 2019, unless otherwise noted.

* * * * *

0
3. Section 81.315 is amended by revising the entries ``Louisville, KY-
IN:'' and ``Chicago Area, IL-IN:'' in the table entitled ``Indiana--
2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS'' to read as follows:

Sec.  81.315  Indiana.

* * * * *

                                                            Indiana--2012 Annual PM2.5 NAAQS
                                                                        [Primary]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Designation                                                Classification
      Designated area \1\      -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Date \2\                    Type                              Date \2\                             Type
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Louisville, KY-IN:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clark County..................       1/28/2018  Unclassifiable/Attainment.........
Floyd County..................       1/28/2018  Unclassifiable/Attainment.........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Chicago Area, IL-IN:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lake County...................       1/28/2018  Unclassifiable/Attainment.........
Porter County.................       1/28/2018  Unclassifiable/Attainment.........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes areas of Indian country located in each county or area, except as otherwise specified.
\2\ This date is April 15, 2015, unless otherwise noted.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2018-27903 Filed 12-26-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 100 (Tuesday, May 24, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32822-32823]
[FR Doc No: 2016-12215]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Twenty-Sixth Meeting: RTCA Special Committee 217 (SC-217)
Aeronautical Databases (Joint With EUROCAE WG-44 Aeronautical
Databases)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of Twenty-Sixth RTCA Special Committee 217 meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of the
Twenty-Sixth RTCA Special Committee 217 meeting.

DATES: The meeting will be held July 18-22, 2016 from 9:00 a.m.-5:00
p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at Boeing, 7501 12th Ave S.,
Seattle, WA 98108.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The RTCA Secretariat, 1150 18th Street
NW., Suite 910, Washington, DC, 20036, or by telephone at (202) 833-
9339, fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or Web site at http://www.rtca.org or
Jennifer Iversen, Program Director, RTCA, Inc<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(202) 330-0662; Anna Von Groote, EUROCAE Technical Programme Manager,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>+33 1 40 92 79 26; Brian Gilbert,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(425) 237-7720; or Stephane Dubet,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>+33 5 57 92 57 81.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 5 U.S.C., App.), notice is
hereby given for a meeting of RTCA Special Committee 217. The agenda
will include the following:

Monday, July 18, 2016 (9:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.) Opening Plenary Session

1. Co-Chairmen's remarks and introductions
2. Housekeeping
3. Approve minutes from 25th meeting
4. Review and approve meeting agenda for 26th meeting
5. Action item list review
6. Review of the ISRA with SC206
7. Document update process--method for proposing changes
8. Presentations (TBD)

Monday-Thursday, July 18-21, 2016 (12:00 p.m.-5:00 p.m.) Working Group
Sessions

1. Sub-team report-outs
    a. Document structure
    b. Background/PBN principles
    c. Data preparation rules
    d. Data quality
    e. Procedure encoding
    f. Aeronautical information basics
2. Status of EASA PBN IR
3. Presentation: Typical issues with State data or procedures
4. RNP Data Block proposal
5. Application appendix input review
6. Draft of requirements tables based on data catalog
7. Review inputs for action items 25-18 through 25-23
8. New proposals

Friday, July 22, 2016 (9:00 a.m.-1:00 p.m.) Closing Plenary Session

1. Meeting wrap-up: Main conclusions and way forward
2. Review of action items
3. Next meetings
4. Any other business

    Attendance is open to the interested public but limited to space
availability. With the approval of the chairman, members of the public
may present oral statements at the meeting. Plenary information will be
provided upon request. Persons who wish to present statements or obtain
information should contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section. Members of the public may present a
written statement to the committee at any time.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 19, 2016.
Latasha Robinson,
Management & Program Analyst, NextGen, Enterprise Support Services
Division, Federal Aviation Administration.
[FR Doc. 2016-12215 Filed 5-23-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P