Page 1 of 3 FIFRA SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY PANEL ( SAP) OPEN MEETING October 28  29, 2003 FIFRA SAP WEB SITE http:// www. epa. gov/ scipoly/ sap/ OPP Docket Telephone: ( 703) 305 5805 HOLIDAY INN HOTEL 1900 NORTH FORT MYER DRIVE ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22209 ( 703) 807 2000 ENSURING DATA QUALITY FOR IN VITRO TESTS USED AS ALTERNATIVES TO ANIMAL STUDIES FOR REGULATORY PURPOSES: A CONSULTATION Session Chairperson Steven G. Heeringa, Ph. D. Research Scientist & Director for Statistical Design University of Michigan Institute for Social Research 426 Thompson Street, P. O. Box 1248 Ann Arbor, MI 48106 1248 Designated Federal Official Ms. Myrta R. Christian, M. S. FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Office of Science Coordination and Policy Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. ( 7201M) Washington, DC 20460 TEL: ( 202) 564 8450 FAX: ( 202) 546 8382 christian. myrta@ epa. gov Page 2 of 3 FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel Members:

Stephen M. Roberts, Ph. D. ( FIFRA SAP Chair) Professor & Program Director University of Florida Center for Environmental & Human Toxicology Building 471, Mowry Road Gainesville, FL 32611 Stuart Handwerger, M. D.. Director, Division of Endocrinology Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center University of Cincinnati 3333 Burnet Avenue Cincinnati, OH 45229 Gary E. Isom, Ph. D. Professor of Toxicology School of Pharmacy and Pharmacal Sciences Purdue University 575 Stadium Mall Drive West Lafayette, IN 47907 2091 Mary Anna Thrall, D. V. M. Professor, Department of Pathology College of Veterinary & Biomedical Sciences Colorado State University Fort Collins, CO 80523 FQPA Science Review Board Members Joseph P. Bressler, Ph. D. Department of Neurobiology The Kennedy Krieger Research Institute 707 N. Broadway Baltimore, MD 21205 Page 3 of 3 George DeGeorge, Ph. D. Chief Scientific Officer MB Research Laboratories 1765 Wentz Road P. O. Box 178 Spinnerstown, PA 18968 James Freeman, Ph. D. ExxonMobil Biomedical Sciences, Inc. P. O. Box 971, 1545 Route 22 East Annandale, New Jersey 08801 0971 Michael Luster, Ph. D. Toxicology and Molecular Biology Branch Natl. Inst. for Occupational Safety and Health MD L 3015 1095 Willowdale Rd. Morgantown, WV 26505 James F. McCormack, Ph. D. Director of Nonclinical Laboratory Compliance Food & Drug Administration Division of Compliance Policy, HFC 230 Office of Regulatory Affairs, Room 400Z 1350 Piccard Drive Rockville, MD 20857 Kenneth Portier, Ph. D. Associate Professor of Statistics Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences University of Florida 522 McCarty Hall C, P. O. Box 110229 Gainesville, FL 32611 0339 Gregory A. Reed, Ph. D. Associate Professor Mail Stop 1018 Department of Pharmacology, Toxicology, and Therapeutics University of Kansas Medical Center 3901 Rainbow Boulevard Kansas City, KS 66160


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 145 (Monday, July 29, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36644-36647]
[FR Doc No: 2019-15973]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-86437; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2019-053]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
To Amend Its Rules Governing the Nasdaq Options Market To Modify the
Give Up of a Clearing Participant by a Participant on NOM Transactions

July 23, 2019.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on July 9, 2019, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``SEC'' or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III, below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend its rules governing the Nasdaq
Options Market (``NOM'') to modify the give up of a Clearing
Participant \3\ by a Participant \4\ on NOM transactions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The term ``Clearing Participant'' means a Participant that
is self-clearing or a Participant that clears NOM Transactions for
other Participants of NOM. See Chapter I, Section 1(a)(9).
    \4\ The term ``Participant'' means a firm, or organization that
is registered with the Exchange pursuant to Chapter II of the
Exchange's rules for purposes of participating in options trading on
NOM as a ``Nasdaq Options Order Entry Firm'' or ``Nasdaq Options
Market Maker.'' See Chapter I, Section 1(a)(40).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com, at the principal office of
the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its requirements in Chapter VI,
Section 14 related to the give up of a Clearing Participant by a
Participant on NOM transactions. This proposed rule change is
substantially similar \5\ to a recently-approved rule change by the
Exchange's affiliate, Nasdaq PHLX LLC (``Phlx''),\6\ and serves to
align the rules of Phlx and the Exchange.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Specifically, Nasdaq is not adopting section (c)(i) of Phlx
Rule 1037, which relates to how the Phlx trading system will enforce
unauthorized Give Ups for floor trades.
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85136 (February 14,
2019) (SR-Phlx-2018-72) (Approval Order).
    \7\ The other Nasdaq, Inc.-owned options markets, Nasdaq BX,
Nasdaq ISE, Nasdaq GEMX, and Nasdaq MRX (collectively, ``Nasdaq
HoldCo Exchanges''), have already filed or will file similar rule
change proposals based on the Phlx filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By way of background, to enter transactions on NOM, a Participant
must either be a Clearing Participant or must have a Clearing
Participant agree to accept financial responsibility for all of its
transactions. In particular, Chapter VI, Section 14 currently provides
that a Participant must give up the name of the Clearing Participant
through which the transaction will be cleared. Chapter VI, Section
15(a) provides, in relevant part, that every Clearing Participant shall
be responsible for the clearance of NOM transactions of such Clearing
Participant and of each Participant that gives up such Clearing
Participant's name pursuant to a letter of authorization, letter of
guarantee or other authorization given by such Clearing Participant to
such Participant, which authorization must be submitted to the
Exchange. Additionally Chapter VII, Section 8 provides that no
Participant shall make any transactions on NOM unless a Letter of
Guarantee has been issued for such Participant by a Clearing
Participant and filed with the Exchange.
    Recently, certain Clearing Participants, in conjunction with the
Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (``SIFMA''),
expressed concerns related to the process by which executing brokers on
U.S. options exchanges (``Exchanges'') are allowed to designate or
`give up' a clearing firm for purposes of clearing particular
transactions. The SIFMA-affiliated Clearing Participants have recently
identified the current give up process as a significant source of risk
for clearing firms, and subsequently requested that the Exchanges
alleviate this risk by amending Exchange rules governing the give up
process.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See note 6 above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Rule Change
    Based on the above, the Exchange now seeks to amend its rules
regarding the current give up process in order to allow a Clearing
Participant to opt in, at The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'')
clearing number level, to a feature that, if enabled by the Clearing
Participant, will allow the Clearing Participant to specify which
Participants are authorized to give up that OCC clearing number.
Accordingly, Section 14 will be retitled as ``Authorization to Give
Up,'' and the current rule text will be replaced by new language.
Specifically, proposed

Section 14(a) will provide that for each transaction in which a
Participant participates, the Participant may indicate, through post
trade allocation, any OCC number of a Clearing Participant through
which a transaction will be cleared (``Give Up''), provided the
Clearing Participant has not elected to ``Opt In,'' as defined in
paragraph (b) of the proposed Rule, and restrict one or more of its OCC
number(s) (``Restricted OCC Number'').\9\ A Participant may Give Up a
Restricted OCC Number provided the Participant has written
authorization as described in paragraph (b)(ii) (``Authorized
Participant'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Today, electronic trades need a valid mnemonic, which is
only set up if there is a clearing arrangement already in place
through a Letter of Guarantee. As such, electronic trades
automatically clear through the guarantor associated with the
mnemonic at the time of the trade, so a member organization may only
amend its Give Up post-trade. As proposed, the Exchange will also
restrict the post-trade allocation portion of an electronic trade
systematically. See note 12 below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Section 14(b) provides that Clearing Participants may
request the Exchange restrict one or more of their OCC clearing numbers
(``Opt In'') as described in subparagraph (i) of Section 14(b). If a
Clearing Participant Opts In, the Exchange will require written
authorization from the Clearing Participant permitting a Participant to
Give Up a Clearing Participant's Restricted OCC Number. An Opt In would
remain in effect until the Clearing Participant terminates the Opt In
as described in subparagraph (iii). If a Clearing Participant does not
Opt In, that Clearing Participant's OCC number may be subject to Give
Up by any Participant.
    Proposed Section 14(b)(i) will set forth the process by which a
Clearing Participant may Opt In. Specifically, a Clearing Participant
may Opt In by sending a completed ``Clearing Member Restriction Form''
listing all Restricted OCC Numbers and Authorized Participant.\10\ A
copy of the proposed form is attached [sic] in Exhibit 3. A Clearing
Participant may elect to restrict one or more OCC clearing numbers that
are registered in its name at OCC. The Clearing Participant would be
required to submit the Clearing Member Restriction Form to the
Exchange's Membership Department as described on the form. Once
submitted, the Exchange requires ninety days before a Restricted OCC
Number is effective within the System. This time period is to provide
adequate time for the member users of that Restricted OCC Number who
are not initially specified by the Clearing Participant as Authorized
Participants to obtain the required written authorization from the
Clearing Participant for that Restricted OCC Number. Such member users
would still be able to Give Up that Restricted OCC Number during this
ninety day period (i.e., until the number becomes restricted within the
System).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ This form will be available on the Exchange's website. The
Exchange will also maintain, on its website, a list of the
Restricted OCC Numbers, which will be updated on a regular basis,
and the Clearing Participant's contact information to assist
Participants (to the extent they are not already Authorized
Participants) with requesting authorization for a Restricted OCC
Number. The Exchange may utilize additional means to inform its
members of such updates on a periodic basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Section 14(b)(ii) will set forth the process for
Participants to Give Up a Clearing Participant's Restricted OCC Number.
Specifically, a Participant desiring to Give Up a Restricted OCC Number
must become an Authorized Participant.\11\ The Clearing Participant
will be required to authorize a Participant as described in
subparagraph (i) or (iii) of Section 14(b) (i.e., through a Clearing
Member Restriction Form), unless the Restricted OCC Number is already
subject to a Letter of Guarantee that the Participant is a party to, as
set forth in Section 14(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The Exchange will develop procedures for notifying
Participants that they are authorized or unauthorized by Clearing
Participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to proposed Section 14(b)(iii), a Clearing Participant may
amend the list of its Authorized Participants or Restricted OCC Numbers
by submitting a new Clearing Member Restriction Form to the Exchange's
Membership Department indicating the amendment as described on the
form. Once a Restricted OCC Number is effective within the System
pursuant to Section 14(b)(i), the Exchange may permit the Clearing
Participant to authorize, or remove authorization for, a Participant to
Give Up the Restricted OCC Number intra-day only in unusual
circumstances, and on the next business day in all regular
circumstances. The Exchange will promptly notify the Participants if
they are no longer authorized to Give Up a Clearing Participant's
Restricted OCC Number. If a Clearing Participant removes a Restricted
OCC Number, any Participant may Give Up that OCC clearing number once
the removal has become effective on or before the next business day.
    Proposed Section 14(c) will provide that the System will not allow
an unauthorized Give Up with a Restricted OCC Number to be submitted at
the firm mnemonic level at the point of order entry.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Similar to Phlx, the System will block the entry of the
order from the outset. See Phlx Rule 1037(c)(ii). This is because a
valid mnemonic will be required for any order to be submitted
directly to the System, and a mnemonic will only be set up for a
member organization if there is already a clearing arrangement in
place for that firm either through a Letter of Guarantee (as is the
case today) or in the case of a Restricted OCC Number, the member
organization becoming an Authorized Member Organization. The System
will also restrict any post-trade allocation changes if the member
organization is not authorized to use a Restricted OCC Number.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, the Exchange proposes to adopt paragraph (d) to
Section 14 to provide, as is the case today, that a clearing
arrangement subject to a Letter of Guarantee would immediately permit
the Give Up of a Restricted OCC Number by the Participant that is party
to the arrangement. Since there is an OCC clearing arrangement already
established in this case, no further action is needed on the part of
the Clearing Participant or the Participant.
    The Exchange also proposes to adopt paragraph (e) to Section 14 to
provide that an intentional misuse of this rule is impermissible, and
may be treated as a violation of Nasdaq Rule 2010A, titled ``Standards
of Commercial Honor and Principles of Trade,'' or Chapter III, Section
1, titled ``Adherence to Law.'' This language will make clear that the
Exchange will regulate an intentional misuse of this rule (e.g.,
sending orders to a Clearing Participant's OCC account without the
Clearing Participant's consent), and that such behavior would be a
violation of Exchange rules.
    In light of the foregoing proposal, the Exchange also proposes to
amend Chapter VI, Section 15(a), which addresses the Clearing
Participant's financial responsibility for the NOM transactions of
Participants who give up the name of such Clearing Participant pursuant
to, for example, a letter of guarantee. In particular, the Exchange
proposes to add that every Clearing Participant shall be responsible
for the clearance of NOM transactions of each Participant who gives up
such Clearing Participant's name pursuant to a written authorization to
become an Authorized Participant under Chapter VI, Section 14. Lastly,
the Exchange proposes two technical changes in the same provision: (1)
To capitalize Letter of Guarantee for consistency throughout its
Rulebook, and (2) to delete obsolete references to the letter of
authorization.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The Exchange has since updated its forms to combine the
letter of authorization and guarantee into one Letter of Guarantee
applicable to all Participants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Implementation
    The Exchange proposes to implement the proposed rule change no
later than by the end of Q3 2019. The Exchange will announce the
implementation date

to its Participants in an Options Trader Alert.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\14\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\15\ in particular, in that it is designed 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Particularly, as discussed above, several clearing firms affiliated
with SIFMA have recently expressed concerns relating to the current
give up process, which permits Participants to identify any Clearing
Participant as a designated give up for purposes of clearing particular
transactions, and have identified the current give up process (i.e., a
process that lacks authorization) as a significant source of risk for
clearing firms.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed changes to Chapter VI,
Section 14 help alleviate this risk by enabling Clearing Participants
to `Opt In' to restrict one or more of its OCC clearing numbers (i.e.,
Restricted OCC Numbers), and to specify which Authorized Participants
may Give Up those Restricted OCC Numbers. As described above, all other
Participants would be required to receive written authorization from
the Clearing Participant before they can Give Up that Clearing
Participant's Restricted OCC Number. The Exchange believes that this
authorization provides proper safeguards and protections for Clearing
Participants as it provides controls for Clearing Participants to
restrict access to their OCC clearing numbers, allowing access only to
those Authorized Participants upon their request. The Exchange also
believes that its proposed Clearing Member Restriction Form allows the
Exchange to receive in a uniform fashion, written and transparent
authorization from Clearing Participants, which ensures seamless
administration of the rule.
    The Exchange believes that the proposed Opt In process strikes the
right balance between the various views and interests across the
industry. For example, although the proposed rule would require
Participants (other than Authorized Participants) to seek authorization
from Clearing Participants in order to have the ability to give them
up, each Participant will still have the ability to Give Up a
Restricted OCC Number that is subject to a Letter of Guarantee without
obtaining any further authorization if that Participant is party to
that arrangement. The Exchange also notes that to the extent the
executing Participant has a clearing arrangement with a Clearing
Participant (i.e., through a Letter of Guarantee), a trade can be
assigned to the executing Participant's guarantor. Accordingly, the
Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is reasonable and
continues to provide certainty that a Clearing Participant would be
responsible for a trade, which protects investors and the public
interest. Finally, the Exchange believes that adopting paragraph (e) of
Section 14 will make clear that an intentional misuse of this rule
(e.g., sending orders to a Clearing Participant's OCC account without
the Clearing Participant's consent) will be a violation of the
Exchange's rules, and that such behavior would subject a Participant to
disciplinary action.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe
that the proposed rule change will impose an unnecessary burden on
intramarket competition because it would apply equally to all similarly
situated Participants. The Exchange also notes that, should the
proposed changes make NOM more attractive for trading, market
participants trading on other exchanges can always elect to become
Participants on NOM to take advantage of the trading opportunities.
    Furthermore, the proposed rule change does not address any
competitive issues and ultimately, the target of the Exchange's
proposal is to reduce risk for Clearing Participants under the current
give up model. Clearing firms make financial decisions based on risk
and reward, and while it is generally in their beneficial interest to
clear transactions for market participants in order to generate profit,
it is the Exchange's understanding from SIFMA and clearing firms that
the current process can create significant risk when the clearing firm
can be given up on any market participant's transaction, even where
there is no prior customer relationship or authorization for that
designated transaction.
    In the absence of a mechanism that governs a market participant's
use of a Clearing Participant's services, the Exchange's proposal may
indirectly facilitate the ability of a Clearing Participant to manage
their existing customer relationships while continuing to allow market
participant choice in broker execution services. While Clearing
Participants may compete with executing brokers for order flow, the
Exchange does not believe this proposal imposes an undue burden on
competition. Rather, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule
change balances the need for Clearing Participants to manage risks and
allows them to address outlier behavior from executing brokers while
still allowing freedom of choice to select an executing broker.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \16\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \17\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and

arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2019-053 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2019-053. 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-NASDAQ-2019-053 and should be submitted
on or before August 19, 2019.

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

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

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-15973 Filed 7-26-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 52 (Monday, March 18, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16758-16761]
[FR Doc No: 2013-06146]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2013-0012]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Diabetes
Mellitus

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

ACTION: Notice of applications for exemption from the diabetes mellitus
requirement; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 20 individuals
for exemption from the prohibition against persons with insulin-treated
diabetes mellitus (ITDM) operating commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in
interstate commerce. If granted, the exemptions would enable these
individuals with ITDM to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 17, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments bearing the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) Docket No. FMCSA-2013-0012 using any of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
docket numbers for this notice. Note that all comments received will be
posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. Please see the Privacy Act heading below
for further information.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or Room W12-140
on the ground level of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) is
available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year. If you want
acknowledgment that we received your comments, please include a self-
addressed, stamped envelope or postcard or print the acknowledgement
page that appears after submitting comments on-line.
    Privacy Act: Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments
received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or of the person signing the comment, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
You may review DOT's Privacy Act Statement for the Federal Docket
Management System (FDMS) published in the Federal Register on December
29, 2010 (75 FR 82132), or you may visit http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-12-29/pdf/2010-32876.pdf.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elaine M. Papp, Chief, Medical
Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>FMCSA,
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W64-224,
Washington, DC 20590-0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for a 2-year period
if it finds ``such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety
that is equivalent to or greater than the level that would be achieved
absent such exemption.'' The statute also allows the Agency to renew
exemptions at the end of the 2-year period. The 20 individuals listed
in this notice have recently requested such an exemption from the
diabetes prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(3), which applies to drivers
of CMVs in interstate commerce. Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate
the qualifications of each applicant to determine whether granting the
exemption will achieve the required level of safety mandated by the
statutes.

Qualifications of Applicants

Mick E. Brand

    Mr. Brand, 48, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Brand understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Brand meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2012 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class B CDL from Washington.

Victor L. Daniels, Sr.

    Mr. Daniels, 49, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2013 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or

resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred without warning
in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic
episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist certifies that Mr.
Daniels understands diabetes management and monitoring, has stable
control of his diabetes using insulin, and is able to drive a CMV
safely. Mr. Daniels meets the vision requirements of 49 CFR
391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him in 2012 and certified
that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from
Delaware.

Kenneth T. Faborito

    Mr. Faborito, 62, has had ITDM since 2009. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Faborito understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Faborito meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2012 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Hawaii.

Colleen M. Herron

    Ms. Herron, 25, has had ITDM since 1996. Her endocrinologist
examined her in 2012 and certified that she has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
Her endocrinologist certifies that Ms. Herron understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of her diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Ms. Herron meets the vision
requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). Her optometrist examined her in
2012 and certified that she does not have diabetic retinopathy. She
holds a Class C operator's license from California.

Vincent K. Johnson

    Mr. Johnson, 42, has had ITDM since 2010. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Johnson understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Johnson meets the
vision requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he does not have diabetic
retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from District of Columbia.

Mark R. Kolling

    Mr. Kolling, 49, has had ITDM since 2009. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Kolling understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Kolling meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2012 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class D operator's license from
Minnesota.

Kevin P. Lee

    Mr. Lee, 43, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist examined
him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or
more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His
endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Lee understands diabetes management
and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and
is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Lee meets the requirements of the
vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him
in 2012 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He
holds a Class A CDL from Minnesota.

Jason J. Libke

    Mr. Libke, 26, has had ITDM since 1991. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Libke understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Libke meets the vision
requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in
2012 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds
a Class C operator's license from California.

William R. Luckenbach

    Mr. Luckenbach, 62, has had ITDM since 2011. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Luckenbach understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Luckenbach meets the
vision requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he does not have diabetic
retinopathy. He holds a Class D operator's license from Oklahoma.

Duane W. Mansur

    Mr. Mansur, 58, has had ITDM since 2005. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Mansur understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Mansur meets the vision
requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him
in 2012 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic
retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from New Hampshire.

Fritz R. McBride

    Mr. McBride, 30, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist
examined him

in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic reactions
resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance of another
person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that occurred
without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or more)
severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His endocrinologist
certifies that Mr. McBride understands diabetes management and
monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and is
able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. McBride meets the vision requirements
of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2012 and
certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class
D operator's license from Wisconsin.

Arthur H. Olsen

    Mr. Olsen, 35, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Olsen understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Olsen meets the vision
requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in
2012 and certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds
a Class A CDL from Arizona.

Jacob D. Parnaby

    Mr. Parnaby, 23, has had ITDM since 2006. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Parnaby understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Parnaby meets the
vision requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he does not have diabetic
retinopathy. He holds a Class D CDL from Ohio.

Billy L. Suffel

    Mr. Suffel, 73, has had ITDM since 1999. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Suffel understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Suffel meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2012 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Ohio.

Samuel A. Tuzenew

    Mr. Tuzenew, 35, has had ITDM since 2008. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Tuzenes understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Tuzenew meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2012 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class C operator's license from
North Carolina.

Ronnie L. West

    Mr. West, 68, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist examined
him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe hypoglycemic
reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring the assistance
of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive function that
occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no recurrent (2 or
more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years. His
endocrinologist certifies that Mr. West understands diabetes management
and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using insulin, and
is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. West meets the vision requirements
of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His optometrist examined him in 2013 and
certified that he does not have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class
A CDL from Missouri.

Robert J. Weyant

    Mr. Weyant, 68, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Weyant understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Weyant meets the vision
requirements of 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His ophthalmologist examined him
in 2013 and certified that he has stable nonproliferative diabetic
retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Pennsylvania.

Douglas G. Willson

    Mr. Willson, 56, has had ITDM since 2012. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Willson understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Willson meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2012 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class A CDL from Oklahoma.

Brandon P. Wilson

    Mr. Wilson, 22, has had ITDM since 1999. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Wilson understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Wilson meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
optometrist examined him in 2013 and certified that he does not have
diabetic retinopathy.

He holds a Class B CDL from North Carolina.

Peter S. Zipperer

    Mr. Zipperer, 39, has had ITDM since 2004. His endocrinologist
examined him in 2012 and certified that he has had no severe
hypoglycemic reactions resulting in loss of consciousness, requiring
the assistance of another person, or resulting in impaired cognitive
function that occurred without warning in the past 12 months and no
recurrent (2 or more) severe hypoglycemic episodes in the last 5 years.
His endocrinologist certifies that Mr. Zipperer understands diabetes
management and monitoring, has stable control of his diabetes using
insulin, and is able to drive a CMV safely. Mr. Zipperer meets the
requirements of the vision standard at 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10). His
ophthalmologist examined him in 2012 and certified that he does not
have diabetic retinopathy. He holds a Class D Chauffer's license from
Louisiana.

Request for Comments

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315, FMCSA requests
public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions
described in this notice. We will consider all comments received before
the close of business on the closing date indicated in the date section
of the notice.
    FMCSA notes that section 4129 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible
and Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users requires
the Secretary to revise its diabetes exemption program established on
September 3, 2003 (68 FR 52441).\1\ The revision must provide for
individual assessment of drivers with diabetes mellitus, and be
consistent with the criteria described in section 4018 of the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (49 U.S.C. 31305).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Section 4129(a) refers to the 2003 notice as a ``final
rule.'' However, the 2003 notice did not issue a ``final rule'' but
did establish the procedures and standards for issuing exemptions
for drivers with ITDM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 4129 requires: (1) Elimination of the requirement for 3
years of experience operating CMVs while being treated with insulin;
and (2) establishment of a specified minimum period of insulin use to
demonstrate stable control of diabetes before being allowed to operate
a CMV.
    In response to section 4129, FMCSA made immediate revisions to the
diabetes exemption program established by the September 3, 2003 notice.
FMCSA discontinued use of the 3-year driving experience and fulfilled
the requirements of section 4129 while continuing to ensure that
operation of CMVs by drivers with ITDM will achieve the requisite level
of safety required of all exemptions granted under 49 U.S.C. 31136 (e).
    Section 4129(d) also directed FMCSA to ensure that drivers of CMVs
with ITDM are not held to a higher standard than other drivers, with
the exception of limited operating, monitoring and medical requirements
that are deemed medically necessary.
    The FMCSA concluded that all of the operating, monitoring and
medical requirements set out in the September 3, 2003 notice, except as
modified, were in compliance with section 4129(d). Therefore, all of
the requirements set out in the September 3, 2003 notice, except as
modified by the notice in the Federal Register on November 8, 2005 (70
FR 67777), remain in effect.

    Issued on: March 8, 2013.
Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-06146 Filed 3-15-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 201 (Tuesday, October 18, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 64240-64244]
[FR Doc No: 2011-26898]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2010-0741-201071; FRL-9476-5]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; North
Carolina: Prevention of Significant Deterioration; Greenhouse Gas
Tailoring Rule Revision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to approve a revision to the State
Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted by the State of North Carolina,
through the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources' (NC DENR) Division of Air Quality, to EPA on August 11,
2010, for parallel processing. NC DENR submitted the final version of
this SIP revision on May 17, 2011. The SIP revision establishes new NC
DENR air quality regulations, specific to the regulation of greenhouse
gases (GHGs) under North Carolina's New Source Review (NSR) Prevention
of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program. Specifically, the SIP
revision establishes appropriate emission thresholds for determining
which new stationary sources and modification projects become subject
to North Carolina's PSD permitting requirements for their GHG
emissions. This rule incorporates state law changes into the federally
approved SIP, and specifically, clarifies the applicable thresholds in
the North Carolina SIP for GHG PSD requirements. EPA is approving North
Carolina's May 17, 2011, SIP revision because the Agency has made the
determination that this SIP revision is in accordance with the Clean
Air Act (CAA or Act) and EPA regulations, including regulations
pertaining to PSD permitting for GHGs. Additionally, EPA is responding
to adverse comments received on EPA's November 5, 2010, proposed
approval of North Carolina's August 11, 2010, draft SIP revision.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule will be effective November 17, 2011.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2010-0741. All documents in the docket
are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed
in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e.,
Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section for further information. The Regional Office's official hours
of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal
holidays.

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

Table of Contents

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

I. What is the background for this final action?

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

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

    On August 11, 2010, in response to the Tailoring Rule and earlier
GHG-related EPA rules, NC DENR submitted a draft revision to EPA for
approval into the North Carolina SIP to establish appropriate emission
thresholds for determining which new or modified stationary sources
become subject to North Carolina's PSD permitting requirements for GHG
emissions. Subsequently, on November 5, 2010, EPA published a proposed
rulemaking to approve a portion of North Carolina's August 11, 2010,
SIP revision under parallel processing. See 75 FR 68279. Specifically,
North Carolina's August 11, 2010, draft SIP revision incorporates by
reference the Tailoring Rule provisions at 40 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) 51.166 (as amended June 3, 2010, and effective August
2, 2010), into the North Carolina SIP at 15A North Carolina
Administrative Code (NCAC) 02D .0544--Prevention of Significant
Deterioration Requirements for Greenhouse Gases, to address the
thresholds for GHG permitting applicability. Detailed background
information and EPA's rationale for the proposed approval are provided
in EPA's November 5, 2010, Federal Register notice.
    EPA's November 5, 2010, proposed approval was contingent upon North
Carolina providing a final SIP revision that was substantively the same
as the revision proposed for approval by EPA in the November 5, 2010,
proposed rulemaking. See 75 FR 68279. North Carolina provided its final
SIP revision on May 17, 2011. In its final SIP revision, North Carolina
made minor

formatting changes, and added a couple of clarifications. The
formatting changes included changing a couple of periods to semicolons
and adding the word ``and'' behind a semicolon to transition to the
next statement. With regard to the clarifications, North Carolina
deleted the phrase ``Except for 40 CFR 81.334'' and added a notation to
explicitly identify the effective date of the Federal Tailoring Rule
(i.e., August 2, 2010) that is being incorporated by reference by North
Carolina. Besides the minor formatting changes and the aforementioned
clarifications, there were no differences between North Carolina's
August 11, 2010, draft SIP revision, and the final SIP revision which
was provided on May 17, 2011.
    On December 30, 2010, EPA published a final rule which narrowed its
previous approval of PSD programs as applicable to GHG-emitting sources
in SIPs for 24 states, including North Carolina.\5\ See 75 FR 82536
(PSD Narrowing Rule). Specifically, in the PSD Narrowing Rule, EPA
withdrew its previous approval of North Carolina's SIP to the extent it
applied PSD to GHG-emitting sources below the thresholds in the final
Tailoring Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ ``Limitation of Approval of Prevention of Significant
Deterioration Provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources
in State Implementation Plans.'' 75 FR 82536 (December 30, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The effect of the PSD Narrowing Rule on the approved North Carolina
SIP was to establish that new and modified sources are subject to PSD
permitting requirements for their GHG emissions only if they emit GHGs
at or above the Tailoring Rule's emission thresholds. As result of
today's action approving North Carolina's incorporation of the
appropriate GHG permitting thresholds into its SIP, paragraph (c) in 40
CFR 52.1772, as included in EPA's Narrowing Rule, is no longer
necessary, Thus, today's action also amends section 40 CFR 52.572 to
remove this unnecessary regulatory language.

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

    EPA received three sets of comments on the November 5, 2010,
proposed rulemaking to approve revisions to North Carolina's SIP. One
set of comments, provided by the Sierra Club, was in favor of EPA's
November 5, 2010, proposed action. The other two sets of comments,
provided by the Air Permitting Forum and the John Locke Foundation,
raised concerns with final action on EPA's November 5, 2010, proposed
action. A full set of the comments provided by the Sierra Club, the Air
Permitting Forum (hereinafter referred to as the ``Commenter'') and the
John Locke Foundation (also hereinafter referred to as the
``Commenter'') is provided in the docket for today's final action. The
comments can be accessed at http://www.regulations.gov using Docket ID
No. EPA-R04-OAR-2010-0741. A summary of the adverse comments and EPA's
responses are provided below.
    Generally, the adverse comments fall into six categories. First,
the Commenter asserts that PSD requirements cannot be triggered by
GHGs. Second, the Commenter expresses concerns regarding a footnote in
the November 5, 2010, proposal describing EPA's previously announced
intention to narrow its prior approval of some SIPs to ensure that
sources with GHG emissions that are less than the Tailoring Rule's
thresholds will not be obligated under federal law to obtain PSD
permits prior to a SIP revision incorporating those thresholds. The
Commenter explains that the planned SIP approval narrowing action,
which has now resulted in the PSD Narrowing Rule, ``is illegal.''
Third, the Commenter states that EPA has failed to meet applicable
statutory and executive order review requirements. Fourth, the
Commenter states: ``EPA should explicitly state in any final rule that
the continued enforceability of these provisions in the North Carolina
SIP is limited to the extent to which the federal requirements remain
enforceable.'' Fifth, the Commenter states that ``EPA does not have
statutory authority for the Tailoring Rule.'' Lastly, the Commenter
recommends that EPA re-propose the action once North Carolina has
finalized its changes to the SIP. EPA's responses to these six
categories of comments are provided below.
    Comment 1: The Commenter asserts that PSD requirements cannot be
triggered by GHGs. In its letter, the Commenter reiterates EPA's
statement that without the Tailoring Rule thresholds, PSD will apply as
of January 2, 2011, to all stationary sources that emit or have the
potential to emit, depending on the source category, either 100 or 250
tons of GHG per year. The Commenter also reiterates EPA's statement
that beginning January 2, 2011, a source owner proposing to construct
any new major source that emits at or above the GHG applicability
levels, or modifies any existing major source in a way that would
increase GHG emissions, would need to obtain a PSD permit that
addresses these emissions before construction could begin. In raising
concerns with the two aforementioned statements, the Commenter states:
``[n]o area in the State of North Carolina has been designated
attainment or unclassifiable for greenhouse gases (GHGs), as there is
no national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for GHGs. Therefore,
GHGs cannot trigger PSD permitting.'' The Commenter notes that it made
this argument in detail in comments submitted to EPA on the Tailoring
Rule and other related GHG rulemakings. The Commenter attached those
previously submitted comments to its comments on the proposed
rulemaking related to this action. Finally, the Commenter states that
``EPA should immediately provide notice that it is now interpreting the
Act not to require that GHGs trigger PSD and allow North Carolina to
rescind that portion of its rules that would allow GHGs to trigger
PSD.''
    Response 1: EPA established the requirement that PSD applies to all
pollutants newly subject to regulation, including non-NAAQS pollutants
such as GHGs, in earlier national rulemakings concerning the PSD
program, and EPA has not re-opened that issue in this rulemaking. In an
August 7, 1980, rulemaking at 45 FR 52676, 45 FR 52710-52712, and 45 FR
52735, EPA stated that a ``major stationary source'' was one which
emitted ``any air pollutant subject to regulation under the Act'' at or
above the specified numerical thresholds; and defined a ``major
modification,'' in general, as a physical or operational change that
increased emissions of ``any pollutant subject to regulation under the
Act'' by more than an amount that EPA variously termed as de minimis or
significant. In addition, EPA's 2002 NSR Reform rules EPA added to the
PSD regulations the new definition of ``regulated NSR pollutant''
(currently codified at 40 CFR 52.21(b)(50) and 40 CFR 51.166(a)(49))
and; noted that EPA added this term based on a request from a commenter
to ``clarify which pollutants are covered under the PSD program.''
Further EPA explained that in addition to criteria pollutants for which
a NAAQS has been established, ``[t]he PSD program applies automatically
to newly regulated NSR pollutants, which would include final
promulgation of an NSPS [new source performance standard] applicable to
a previously unregulated pollutant.'' See 67 FR 80186, 80240 and 80264
(December 31, 2002). Among other things, the definition of ``regulated
NSR pollutant'' includes ``[a]ny pollutant that otherwise is subject to
regulation under the Act.'' See 40 CFR 52.21(b)(50)(d)(iv); 40 CFR
51.166(a)(49)(iv).
    EPA disagrees with the Commenter's underlying premise that PSD

requirements were not triggered for GHGs when GHGs became subject to
regulation on January 2, 2011. This has been well established and
discussed in connection with prior EPA actions, including, most
recently, the Johnson Reconsideration and the Tailoring Rule. In
addition, EPA's November 5, 2010, proposed rulemaking action provides
the general basis for the Agency's rationale that GHGs, while not a
NAAQS pollutant, can trigger PSD permitting requirements. The November
5, 2010, action also refers the reader to the preamble of the Tailoring
Rule for further information on this rationale. In that rulemaking, EPA
addressed at length the comment that PSD can be triggered only by
pollutants subject to the NAAQS, and concluded such an interpretation
of the Act would contravene Congress' unambiguous intent. See 75 FR
31560-31562. Further discussion of EPA's rationale for concluding that
PSD requirements are triggered by non-NAAQS pollutants such as GHGs
appears in the Tailoring Rule Response-to-Comments document
(``Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V GHG Tailoring
Rule: EPA's Response to Public Comments''), pp. 34-41; and in EPA's
response to motions for a stay filed in the litigation concerning those
rules (``EPA's Response to Motions for Stay,'' Coalition for
Responsible Regulation v. EPA, D.C. Cir. No. 09-1322 (and consolidated
cases)), at pp. 47-59, and are incorporated by reference here. These
documents have been placed in the docket for today's action and can be
accessed at http://www.regulations.gov using Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-
2010-0741.
    Comment 2: The Commenter expresses concerns regarding a footnote in
which EPA describes its previously announced intention to narrow its
prior approval of some SIPs. In the footnote, EPA explained that such
narrowing would ensure that sources with GHG emissions that are less
than the Tailoring Rule's thresholds are not obligated under federal
law to obtain PSD permits during any gap between the effective date of
GHG-permitting requirements (January 2, 2011) and the date that a SIP
is revised to incorporate the Tailoring Rule thresholds. The Commenter
asserts that EPA's narrowing of its prior SIP approvals ``is illegal.''
Further, the Commenter states that ``EPA has not proposed to narrow
North Carolina's SIP approval here and any such proposal must be
explicit and address the action specifically made with respect to North
Carolina's. EPA cannot sidestep these important procedural
requirements.''
    Response 2: While EPA disagrees with the Commenter's assertion that
the narrowing approach discussed in EPA's Tailoring Rule is illegal,
the narrowing approach was not the subject of EPA's November 5, 2010,
proposed rulemaking to approve North Carolina's August 11, 2010, SIP
revision. Rather, the narrowing approach was the subject of a separate
rulemaking, which was considered and finalized in the PSD Narrowing
Rule in an action separate from today's rulemaking. See 75 FR 82536
(December 30, 2010). In today's final action, EPA is acting to approve
a SIP revision submitted by North Carolina, and is not otherwise
narrowing its approval of prior submitted and approved provisions in
the North Carolina SIP. Accordingly, the legality of the narrowing
approach is not at issue in this rulemaking.
    Comment 3: The Commenter states that EPA has failed to meet
applicable statutory and executive order review requirements.
Specifically, the Commenter refers to the statutory and executive
orders for the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA), Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, and Executive Order 13132
(Federalism). Additionally, the Commenter mentions that EPA has never
analyzed the costs and benefits associated with triggering PSD for
stationary sources in North Carolina, much less nationwide.
    Response 3: EPA disagrees with the Commenter's statement that EPA
has failed to meet applicable statutory and executive order review
requirements. As stated in EPA's proposed approval of North Carolina's
May 17, 2011, SIP revision, this action merely approves state law as
meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, EPA
approval, in and of itself, does not impose any new information
collection burden, as defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(b) and (c), that would
require additional review under the Paperwork Reduction Act. In
addition, because today's action simply approves existing state law, it
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities beyond the impact of existing state law requirements.
Thus, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required under the RFA.
Accordingly, this rule is appropriately certified under section 605(b)
of the RFA. Moreover, as this action approves pre-existing requirements
under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty
beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded
mandates or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, such
that it would be subject to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. Finally,
this action does not have federalism implications that would make
Executive Order 13132 applicable because it merely approves a state
rule implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the
relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities
established in the CAA.
    In sum, today's rule is a routine approval of a SIP revision,
approving state law, and does not impose any requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. To the extent these comments are directed more
generally to the application of the statutory and executive order
reviews to the required regulation of GHGs under PSD programs, EPA
provided an extensive response to similar comments in promulgating the
Tailoring Rule. EPA refers the Commenter to the sections in the
Tailoring Rule entitled ``VII. Comments on Statutory and Executive
Order Reviews,'' 75 FR 31601-31603, and ``VI. What are the economic
impacts of the final rule?,'' 75 FR 31595-31601. EPA also notes that
today's action is not itself the trigger for regulation of GHGs. To the
contrary, by helping to clarify that higher PSD applicability
thresholds for GHGs apply than would otherwise be in effect under the
Act, this rulemaking, as well as EPA's Tailoring Rule, is part of the
effort to provide relief to smaller GHG-emitting sources that would
otherwise be subject to PSD permitting requirements for their GHG
emissions.
    Comment 4: The Commenter states that ``[i]f EPA proceeds with this
action, it must condition approval on the continued validity of its
determination that PSD can be triggered by or is applicable to GHGs.''
Further, the Commenter remarks on the ongoing litigation in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Specifically, regarding EPA's
determination that PSD can be triggered by GHGs or is applicable to
GHGs, the Commenter mentions that ``EPA should explicitly state in any
final rule that continued enforceability of these provisions in the
North Carolina SIP is limited to the extent to which the federal
requirements remain enforceable.'' The Commenter notes that if a stay
is issued, these requirements should also be stayed.
    Response 4: EPA believes that it is most appropriate to take
actions that are consistent with the federal regulations that are in
place at the time the action is being taken. To the extent that any
changes to federal regulations related to

today's action result from pending legal challenges or other actions,
EPA will process appropriate SIP revisions in accordance with the
procedures provided in the Act and EPA's regulations. EPA notes that in
an order dated December 10, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals
for the D.C. Circuit denied motions to stay EPA's regulatory actions
related to GHGs. Coalition for Responsible Regulation, Inc. v. EPA,
Nos. 09-1322, 10-1073, 10-1092 (and consolidated cases), Slip Op. at 3
(D.C. Cir. December 10, 2010) (order denying stay motions).
    Comment 5: The Commenter states that ``EPA does not have statutory
authority for the Tailoring Rule.'' Additionally, the Commenter states
that ``EPA's proposal to revise North Carolina's SIP to include
greenhouse gases (GHG) is grounded in an improper interpretation of the
Clean Air Act (CAA). Specifically, the EPA is ignoring the plain and
unambiguous language of the CAA to justify the regulation of GHG. If
the EPA did not change the threshold levels for GHG, by the agency's
own admission, there would be `absurd' results.''
    Response 5: While EPA does not agree with the Commenter's statement
that ``EPA does not have statutory authority for the Tailoring Rule,''
EPA notes that the statutory authority for the Tailoring Rule was not
the subject of EPA's November 5, 2010, proposed rulemaking to approve
North Carolina's August 11, 2010, SIP revision. Rather, the
requirements of the Tailoring Rule were the subject of a separate
rulemaking. In EPA's final action for the Tailoring Rule, EPA provided
extensive discussion and response to comments regarding legality of the
Tailoring Rule in a section entitled, ``V. What is the Legal and Policy
Rationale for the Final Action?'' See 75 FR 31527-31595. In today's
final action, EPA is taking action to approve a SIP revision submitted
by North Carolina, and is not reopening comment on the legality of the
Tailoring Rule.
    Comment 6: The Commenter mentions that the ``comments being
provided to EPA are based on proposed revisions, not final revisions,''
and that ``the differences between the proposed and final North
Carolina revisions may or may not be substantial, but they certainly
could affect how the public comments on the EPA's proposed rule.'' The
Commenter states ``it is unclear why the EPA believes it is appropriate
and legally supportable to seek comments on a yet-to-be finalized
revision to a SIP. Further, it is not clear what would constitute
`significant changes' that would require the EPA to re-propose the
action.'' The Commenter concludes by recommending that EPA re-propose
the action once North Carolina has finalized its changes to the SIP.
    Response 6: The procedure utilized by EPA to solicit public comment
on North Carolina's SIP revision was appropriate and lawful. As
explained in EPA's proposal at 75 FR 68279, EPA utilized a ``parallel
processing'' procedure for this SIP revision. Under this procedure, EPA
proposes rulemaking action concurrently with the State's procedures for
approving a SIP submittal and amending its regulations (40 CFR part 51,
appendix V, 2.3). EPA reviews that SIP submittal, even though the
regulation is not yet adopted in final form by the State, as if it were
a final, adopted regulation. In doing so, EPA evaluates the draft
regulation against the same approvability criteria as any other SIP
submittal. Thus, EPA has not used the ``parallel processing'' procedure
to avoid any statutory requirements. In this case, as explained earlier
in this action, EPA has determined that the minor differences between
the draft and final regulations are insignificant and do not warrant
re-proposal of this action. Accordingly, the proposal gave the public
the appropriate opportunity to comment on the substance of the SIP
revision for which EPA is today issuing a final approval.

III. What is the effect of this final action?

    Final approval of North Carolina's May 17, 2011, SIP revision will
put in place the GHG emission thresholds for PSD applicability set
forth in EPA's Tailoring Rule (75 FR 31514, June 3, 2010) and adopted
as state law, making clear that smaller GHG sources emitting less than
these thresholds will not be subject to permitting requirements under
the approved North Carolina SIP. Pursuant to section 110 of the CAA,
EPA is approving the changes made in North Carolina's May 17, 2011, SIP
revision into North Carolina's SIP.
    North Carolina's May 17, 2011, revision establishes a new
regulation specifically to incorporate by reference the relevant
federal Tailoring Rule provisions set forth at 40 CFR 51.166 into the
North Carolina SIP at 15A North Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC) 02D
.0544--Prevention of Significant Deterioration Requirements for
Greenhouse Gases. EPA has determined that North Carolina's May 17,
2011, SIP revision is consistent with the Tailoring Rule. Furthermore,
EPA has determined that the May 17, 2011, revision to North Carolina's
SIP is consistent with section 110 of the CAA. See, e.g., Tailoring
Rule, 75 FR 31561.

IV. Final Action

    EPA is taking final action to approve North Carolina's May 17,
2011, SIP revision which includes updates to North Carolina's air
quality regulations, 15A North Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC) 02D
.0544--Prevention of Significant Deterioration Requirements for
Greenhouse Gases. Specifically, North Carolina's May 17, 2011, SIP
revision clarifies appropriate emissions thresholds for determining PSD
applicability with respect to new or modified GHG-emitting sources in
accordance with EPA's Tailoring Rule, and incorporates those thresholds
in the form in which they are stated in state law. EPA has made the
determination that the May 17, 2011, SIP revision is approvable because
it is in accordance with the CAA and EPA regulations, including
regulations pertaining to PSD permitting for GHGs.
    As result of EPA's approval of North Carolina's changes to its air
quality regulations to incorporate the appropriate thresholds for GHG
permitting applicability into North Carolina's SIP, paragraph (c) in
Section 52.1772 of 40 CFR part 52, as included in EPA's Narrowing Rule,
is no longer necessary. In today's final action EPA is also amending
Section 52.1772 of 40 CFR part 52 to remove this unnecessary regulatory
language.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state,
and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by December 19, 2011. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. See CAA section 307(b)(2), 42 U.S.C.
7607(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: September 20, 2011.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart II--North Carolina

0
2. Section 52.1770(c) Table 1, is amended under Subchapter 2D, Section
.0500 by adding a new entry ``Sect .0544'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1770  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                Table 1--EPA Approved North Carolina Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          State citation              Title/subject    State effective date     EPA approval date    Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Subchapter 2D Air Pollution Control Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  * * * * * * *
                                    Section .0500 Emission Control Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Sect .0544........................     Prevention of  12/16/10.............  October 18, 2011,       ...........
                                         Significant                          [Insert citation of
                                       Deterioration                          publication].
                                    Requirements for
                                    Greenhouse Gases

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

* * * * *

Sec.  52.1772  [Amended]

0
3. Section 52.1772 is amended by removing paragraph (c).

[FR Doc. 2011-26898 Filed 10-17-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P