[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 120 (Thursday, June 23, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37507-37508]
[FR Doc No: 2022-13445]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0374; FRL-9933-01-OMS]

Notice of Objections to Notice of Intent To Suspend Dimethyl
Tetrachloroterephthalate (DCPA) Technical Registration; Notice of
Public Hearing

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of objections and public hearing.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has received
objections and hearing requests in response to its issuance of a Notice
of Intent to Suspend registration of a pesticide containing dimethyl
tetrachloroterephthalate (DCPA). EPA will hold a public hearing to
receive evidence related to the proposed suspension of DCPA.

DATES: A public hearing will be held beginning at 9 a.m. July 6, 2022
and continue as necessary through July 8, 2022.

ADDRESSES: The public hearing will take place in the EPA Administrative
Courtroom, EPA East Building, Room 1152, 1201 Constitution Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Angeles, Headquarters Hearing
Clerk, Office of Administrative Law Judges, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Mail Code 1900R, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-
6281; email address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general and may be of
interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human
health, farm worker and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry;
pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale,
distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be
interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific
entities that may be affected by this action.

B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    The regulatory docket for this action, identified by docket
identification number EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0374, is available electronically
at https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at

the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket)
in the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    The adjudication docket for the proceeding in which petitioners
have requested a public hearing, captioned in re FIFRA Section
3(c)(2)(B) Notice of Intent to Suspend Dimethyl
Tetrachloroterephthalate (DCPA) Technical Registration and identified
by docket number FIFRA-HQ-2022-0002, is available electronically on the
website of EPA's Office of Administrative Law Judges at https://yosemite.epa.gov/oarm/alj/alj_web_docket.nsf/Active+Dockets?OpenView.

II. Public Hearing To Be Held on Objections to EPA's Notice of Intent
To Suspend DCPA

    EPA previously published (87 FR 25262, April 28, 2022) a Notice of
Intent to Suspend (NOITS) the registration of DCPA pursuant to its
authority under Section 3(c)(2)(B)(iv) of the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(2)(B)(iv).
Section 3(c)(2)(B)(iv) of FIFRA provides that any person adversely
affected by the NOITS may request a hearing on the proposed suspension
within thirty days of the registrant receiving the notice. On May 24,
2022, the Western Plant Health Association filed an objection to the
NOITS. On May 27, 2022, AMVAC Chemical Corporation, the DCPA
registrant, filed an objection to the NOITS and requested a hearing.
Also on May 27, 2022, the Grower-Shipper Association of Central
California, Sunheaven Farms, LLC, J&D Produce, Ratto Bros., Inc., and
Huntington Farms jointly filed an objection to the NOITS and requested
a hearing.
    The hearing requests commenced a proceeding under Section 6(d) of
FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. 136d(d), and EPA's procedural rules, 40 CFR 164, before
EPA's Office of Administrative Law Judges. The proceeding includes a
public hearing that will be held to receive evidence from the parties
relevant and material to issues raised by petitioners objecting to the
proposed suspension of DCPA. FIFRA section 3(c)(2)(B)(iv) specifically
limits the scope of the hearing to two questions: (1) whether the
registrant has failed to take the action that served as the basis for
the notice of intent to suspend the registration of the pesticide for
which additional data is required; and (2) whether the Administrator's
determination with respect to the disposition of existing stocks is
consistent with FIFRA.
    As set forth in DATES and ADDRESSES, the hearing will begin at 9
a.m. July 6, 2022, and continue as necessary through July 8, 2022, in
the EPA Administrative Courtroom, EPA East Building, Room 1152, 1201
Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460. Anyone wishing to attend
the hearing must notify Mary Angeles, Headquarters Hearing Clerk,
Office of Administrative Law Judges, by email no later than July 1,
2022, at the email address listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT. A notice of intent to attend the hearing shall include the
individual's name, email address, telephone number, and any
organization they represent. On the day of the hearing, attendees must
present government-issued identification to enter EPA facilities, and
they will be required to wear a mask and physically distance from
others in the hearing room. Attendees may face further restrictions on
entry based on the community level of COVID-19 at the time of the
hearing.
    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.; 40 CFR 164.

    Dated: June 14, 2022.
Susan Biro,
Chief Administrative Law Judge, Office of Administrative Law Judges.
[FR Doc. 2022-13445 Filed 6-22-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 135 (Friday, July 13, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 41400]
[FR Doc No: 2012-17152]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER12-2159-000]

Canadian Hills Wind, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Canadian Hills Wind, LLC's application for market-based rate authority,
with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes
a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR Part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR Part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is July 26, 2012.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: July 6, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-17152 Filed 7-12-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 202 (Friday, October 20, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72556-72557]
[FR Doc No: 2023-23154]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Hazardous Materials: Notice of Applications for Modification to
Special Permits

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.

ACTION: List of applications for modification of special permits.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the procedures governing the application
for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of
Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations, notice is hereby given
that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the
application described herein.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 6, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC
20590.
    Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in
triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include
a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald Burger, Chief, Office of
Hazardous Materials Safety General Approvals and Permits Branch,
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department
of Transportation, East Building, PHH-13, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
Southeast, Washington, DC 20590-0001,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Each mode of transportation for which a
particular special permit is requested is indicated by a number in the
``Nature of Application'' portion of the table below as follows: 1--
Motor vehicle, 2--Rail freight, 3--Cargo vessel, 4--Cargo aircraft
only, 5--Passenger-carrying aircraft.
    Copies of the applications are available for inspection in the
Records Center, East Building, PHH-13, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
Southeast, Washington, DC or at http://regulations.gov.
    This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is
published in accordance with part 107 of the Federal hazardous
materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 5, 2023.
Donald P. Burger,
Chief, General Approvals and Permits Branch.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Nature of the special permits
       Application No.                Applicant           Regulation(s) affected              thereof
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Special Permits Data
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11818-M.....................  Raytheon Company.........  172.101(j),               To modify the special permit
                                                          172.101(j)(1),            to authorize additional
                                                          173.301(f),               packaging. (modes 1, 3, 4).
                                                          173.302a(a)(1),
                                                          173.304a(a)(2).
12303-M.....................  Halliburton Energy         173.201, 173.301(f),      To modify the special permit
                               Services, Inc.             173.302a, 173.304a.       to authorize an additional
                                                                                cylinder design. (modes 1,
                                                                                2, 3, 4).
15980-M.....................  Windward Aviation Inc....  ........................  To modify the special permit
                                                                                to exempt shipments from 49
                                                                                CFR 172.400 and from 49 CFR
                                                                                175.33. (mode 4).
20245-M.....................  Jaguar Instruments Inc...  173.302(a), 173.304(a)..  To modify the special permit
                                                                                to authorize a cylinder with
                                                                                an increased length. (modes
                                                                                1, 2, 3, 4).
20500-M.....................  California Department of   ........................  To modify the special permit
                               Toxic Substances Control.                            to authorize use in all
                                                                                natural disaster areas.
                                                                                (mode 1).
20527-M.....................  Procyon-alpha Squared,     ........................  To modify the special permit
                               Inc.                                                 to authorize rail as a mode
                                                                                of transportation. (modes 1,
                                                                                2, 3).
21018-M.....................  Packaging And Crating      ........................  To modify the special permit
                               Technologies, LLC.                                   to authorize additional
                                                                                packagings. (modes 1, 2, 3).
21139-M.....................  KULR Technology            172.600, 172.200,         To modify the special permit
                               Corporation.               172.300, 172.700(a),      to authorize an alternative
                                                          172.400, 172.500,         shipping document, to remove
                                                          173.185(b).               the reference to ferry
                                                                                vessel operations, and to
                                                                                clarify the requirement in
                                                                                paragraph 7.b.(2). (modes 1,
                                                                                2, 3).

21463-M.....................  Mission Systems Orchard    173.302a(a)(1)..........  To modify the special permit
                               Park Inc.                                            to authorize a larger volume
                                                                                cylinder. (modes 1, 2, 3, 4,
                                                                                5).
21521-M.....................  Honda Motor Co., Ltd.....  ........................  To modify the special permit
                                                                                to authorize the COPVs to be
                                                                                shipped in an additional
                                                                                outer packaging. (modes 1,
                                                                                2, 3, 4).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2023-23154 Filed 10-19-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P


[Federal Register: April 7, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 67)]
[Notices]
[Page 18828-18831]
[DOCID:fr07ap08-104]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-57594; File No. SR-BSE-2008-17]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Boston Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Amend the Quarterly Options Series Pilot Program To Permit the Listing
of Additional Series

April 1, 2008.
    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 March 28, 2008, the Boston Stock Exchange, Inc. (``Exchange'' or
``BSE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been substantially prepared by the Exchange.
The Exchange has designated this proposal as non-controversial under
Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and

Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposed rule change
effective upon filing with the Commission. 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Supplementary Material .04 to
Section 6 of Chapter IV of the Rules of the Boston Options Exchange
(``BOX'') to permit the Exchange to list strike prices for Quarterly
Options Series (``QOS'') in exchange traded fund (``Fund Share'')
options that fall within a percentage range (30%) above and below the
price of the underlying Fund Share. Additionally, upon demonstrated
customer interest, the Exchange also will be permitted to open
additional strike prices of QOS in Fund Share options that are more
than 30% above or below the current price of the Fund Share. Market
makers trading for their own account will not be considered when
determining customer interest under this provision. In addition to the
initial listed series, the Exchange may list up to sixty (60)
additional series per expiration month for each QOS in Fund Share
options. Further, the proposal includes a delisting program to be
undertaken by the Exchange in connection with QOS in Fund Share
options.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site (http://www.bostonstock.com), at the Exchange's principal
office, 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
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Supplemental Material .04 to Section
6 of Chapter IV of the BOX Rules to permit the Exchange to open
additional series for QOS in Fund Share options that fall within thirty
percent (30%) above and below the price of the underlying Fund Share.
Additionally, upon demonstrated customer interest, the Exchange also
will be permitted to open additional strike prices of QOS in Fund Share
options that are more than 30% above or below the current price of the
underlying Fund Share. Market makers trading for their own account will
not be considered when determining customer interest under this
provision. The Exchange will be permitted to list up to sixty (60)
additional series per expiration month for each QOS in Fund Share
options.
    On July 17, 2007, the Exchange filed with the Commission a pilot
program proposal to permit the listing and trading of QOS in options on
indexes or options on Fund Shares that satisfy the applicable listing
criteria under BOX rules.\5\ QOS trade based on calendar quarters that
end in March, June, September, and December. The Exchange lists QOS
that expire at the end of the next consecutive four calendar quarters,
as well as the fourth quarter of the next calendar year. For example,
if BOX were trading QOS in the iShares Russell 2000 Index Fund
(``IWM'') in the month of April 2008, the Exchange would list series
that expire at the end of the second quarter of 2008 (June), third
quarter of 2008 (September), fourth quarter of 2008 (December), first
quarter of 2009 (March), and fourth quarter of 2009 (December).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56086 (July 17,
2007), 72 FR 40182 (July 23, 2007) (SR-BSE-2007-36) (``Pilot Program
Release''). Under the pilot program, the Exchange may list QOS in up
to five currently listed option classes that are either options on
Fund Shares or indexes. The Exchange also is permitted to list QOS
in any options class that is selected by other securities exchanges
that employ a similar pilot program under their respective rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, the Exchange list QOS in five Fund Share options: (1)
Nasdaq-100 Index Tracking Stock (``QQQQ''); (2) IWM; (3) DIAMONDS
Trust, Series 1 (``DIA''); (4) Standard and Poor's Depositary Receipts/
SPDRs (``SPY''); and (5) Energy Select SPDR (``XLE''). The average
daily trading volume and total volume for QOS in IWM options
significantly exceeds the volumes for QOS of some other Fund Share
options that are listed and traded on the Exchange. The chart below
provides trading volume figures for the fourth quarter in 2007,
demonstrating that QOS in IWM options are one of the most popular and
heavily traded QOS on the Exchange.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          October 2007              November 2007             December 2007
                QOS                -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        ADV       Total vol       ADV       Total vol       ADV       Total vol
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IWM...............................        1,690       38,891        1,597       33,540        3,230       64,612
QQQQ..............................        1,883       43,329        2,353       49,414        3,432       68,642
SPY...............................          699       16,086        1,349       28,335        2,087       41,756
DIA...............................          180        4,150          325        6,830          502       10,049
XLE...............................          188        4,329          927       19,483          261        5,237
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Recently, certain options exchanges (``Options Exchanges'') have
received requests from their members and participants to add additional
strike prices for QOS in IWM options that would be outside of the price
range for setting strikes as provided for under Supplemental Material
.04 to Section 6 of Chapter IV of the BOX Rules (hereinafter ``+/-$5
range'').\6\ These members and participants have advised the Options
Exchanges that they are buying and selling QOS in IWM options to trade
volatility. In order to adequately replicate the desired volatility
exposure, these members and participants need to trade several IWM
option series, many having strike prices that fall outside of the +/-$5
range currently allowed under the QOS rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57410 (March 3,
2008), 73 FR 12483 (March 7, 2008) (SR-CBOE-2007-96). See also
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57425 (March 4, 2008) 73 FR
12783 (March 10, 2008) (SR-ISE-2008-19). Supplemental Material .04
to Section 6 of Chapter IV provides that the Exchange shall list
strike prices for a QOS that are within $5 from the closing price of
the underlying on the preceding day.

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

    In addition, other members and participants have advised the
Options Exchanges that their investment strategies involve trading
options tied to a particular option ``delta,'' \7\ rather than a
particular level of the underlying security or index. At issue is the
fact that delta depends on both the relative difference between the
level of the underlying security or index and the option strike price,
and time to expiration. For example, with IWM trading at $85 per share,
the strike price corresponding to a ``25-delta'' IWM call (i.e., a call
option with a delta of 25) with one month to expiration would be 89.
However, the strike price corresponding to a ``25-delta'' IWM call with
3 months to expiration would be 93, and the strike price of a ``25-
delta'' call with 1 year to expiration would be 106. In short, the
Exchange has been advised that the +/-$5 range for QOS in IWM options
is insufficient to satisfy customer demand.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ ``Delta'' is a measure of how an option price will change in
response to a $1 price change in the underlying security or index.
For example, an ABC option with a delta of ``50'' can be expected to
change by $0.50 in response to a $1 change in the price of ABC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to meet customer demand, the Exchange proposes to amend
Supplemental Material .04 to Section 6 of Chapter IV of the BOX Rules,
which governs the Quarterly Option Series Pilot Program. Specifically,
the Exchange proposes to allow the Exchange to open additional strike
prices of QOS in Fund Share options that are within thirty percent
(30%) above or below the closing price of the underlying Fund Share on
the preceding business day. The Exchange also will be permitted to open
additional strike prices of QOS in Fund Share options that are more
than 30% above or below the current price of the underlying Fund Share,
provided that demonstrated customer interest exists for such series, as
expressed by institutional, corporate or individual customers or their
brokers. Market makers trading for their own account will not be
considered when determining customer interest under this proposed
provision. The Exchange will be permitted to list up to sixty (60)
additional series per expiration month for each QOS in Fund Share
options.
    The Exchange is also proposing to add new paragraph (g) to
Supplemental Material .04 to Section 6 of Chapter IV of the BOX Rules,
which sets forth a delisting policy. Specifically, with respect to QOS
in Fund Share options, the Exchange will, on a monthly basis, review
series that are outside a range of five strikes above and five strikes
below the current price of the underlying Fund Share, and delist series
with no open interest in both the put and the call series having a
strike price: (i) Higher than the highest strike price with open
interest in the put and/or call series for a given expiration month; or
(ii) lower than the lowest strike price with open interest in the put
and/or call series for a given expiration month.
    To illustrate how the proposed delisting program would work, assume
IWM closed at $70 on the day the Exchange conducts the monthly review
of QOS in Fund Share options. Series having strike prices above $75 and
below $65 would be reviewed by the Exchange for possible delisting.
Assume that the Exchange lists the following QOS in IWM options that
expire in June 2008:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Calls--June 08 Exp                    Puts--June 08 Exp
------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Strike         Open Interest?         Strike        Open Interest?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       62                 No                 62                No
       63                 No                 63               Yes
       64                 Yes                64               Yes
        *                  *                 *                 *
       76                 Yes                76               Yes
       77                 Yes                77               Yes
       78                 Yes                78               Yes
       79                 Yes                79               Yes
       80                 Yes                80               Yes
       81                 Yes                81               Yes
       82                 Yes                82               Yes
       83                 No                 83                No
       84                 No                 84                No
       85                 No                 85               Yes
       86                 Yes                86                No
       87                 Yes                87               Yes
       88                 Yes                88               Yes
       89                 Yes                89                No
       90                 Yes                90                No
       91                 No                 91                No
       92                 No                 92                No
       93                 No                 93                No
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange would de-list the first series listed above, as well
as the last three: $62, $91, $92, and $93. The Exchange would not
delist the $83 and $84 series because there are series having open
interest with strike prices higher than these two series. In addition,
the Exchange would not delist the $63 call series because there is open
interest in the $63 put series.
    Notwithstanding the proposed delisting policy, customer requests to
add strikes and/or maintain strikes in QOS in Fund Share options in
series eligible for delisting shall be granted. Further, in connection
with the proposed delisting policy, if the Exchange identifies series
for delisting, the Exchange shall notify other options exchanges with
similar delisting policies regarding eligible series for listing, and
shall work with such other exchanges to develop a uniform list of
series to be delisted, so as to ensure uniform series delisting of
multiple listed QOS in Fund Share options. It is expected that the
proposed delisting policy for QOS in Fund Share options would be
adopted by other options exchanges that have adopted the QOS Pilot
Program.
    BOX represents that it has the necessary systems capacity to
support new options series that will result from this proposal.
Further, as proposed, the Exchange notes that this rule change would
become part of the pilot program and, going forward, would be
considered by the Commission when the Exchange seeks to renew or make
permanent the pilot program in the future.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the rule proposal is consistent with the Act
and the rules and regulations there under applicable to a national
securities exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section
6(b) of the Act.\8\ Specifically, the Exchange believes that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements under Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \9\ that the rules of an exchange be designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. In order to meet customer demand, the Exchange
proposes to amend Supplemental Material .04 to Section 6 of Chapter IV
of the BOX Rules, which governs the Quarterly Option Series Pilot
Program. The additional new series can be added without presenting
capacity problems, and the Exchange has proposed a delisting policy
with respect to QOS in Fund Share options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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 that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    The Exchange has neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    The Exchange has designated the proposed rule change as one that:
(1) Does not significantly affect the protection of investors or the
public interest; (2) does not impose any significant burden on
competition; and (3) does not become operative for 30 days from the
date of filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
Therefore, the foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \10\ and subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule
19b-4 thereunder.\11\ The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive
the 30-day operative delay to permit the Exchange to immediately
compete with the other options exchanges that have similarly amended
their quarterly options series pilot programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to provide the Commission
with written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change,
along with a brief description and text of 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 fulfilled this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that this proposal is substantially similar to
a proposed rule change submitted by the Chicago Board Options Exchange,
which was approved by the Commission following publication for notice
and comment, and does not raise any new regulatory issues.\12\ Waiving
the 30-day operative delay will promote, without undue delay, further
competition in the options market.\13\ For these reasons, the
Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest and
designates the proposal operative upon filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57410, supra note
6. See also Securities Exchange Act Release No. 57425, supra note 6.
    \13\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission notes that this rule change will become part of the
pilot program and, going forward, its effects will be considered by the
Commission in the event that the Exchange seeks to renew or make
permanent the pilot program.\14\ Thus, in the Exchange's future reports
on the Pilot Program, the Exchange should include analysis of (1) the
impact of the additional series on the Exchange's market and quote
capacity, and (2) the implementation and effects of the delisting
policy, including the number of series eligible for delisting during
the period covered by the report, the number of series actually
delisted during that period (pursuant to the delisting policy or
otherwise), and documentation of any customer requests to maintain QOS
strikes that were otherwise eligible for delisting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ As set forth in the Pilot Program Release, if the Exchange
were to propose an extension, expansion, or permanent approval of
the Pilot Program, the Exchange must submit, along with any filing
proposing such amendments to the program, a report that provides an
analysis of the Pilot Program covering the entire period during
which the Pilot Program was in effect. See Pilot Program Release,
supra note 5. The Pilot Program Release requires the Exchange to
include in its report, at a minimum: (1) data and written analysis
on the open interest and trading volume in the classes for which QOS
were opened; (2) an assessment of the appropriateness of the option
classes selected for the Pilot Program; (3) an assessment of the
impact of the Pilot Program on the capacity of the Exchange, OPRA,
and market data vendors (to the extent data from market data vendors
is available); (4) any capacity problems or other problems that
arose during the operation of the Pilot Program and how the Exchange
addressed such problems; (5) any complaints that the Exchange
received during the operation of the Pilot Program and how the
Exchange addressed them; and (6) any additional information that
would assist in assessing the operation of the Pilot Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate the 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.

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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-BSE-2008-17 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BSE-2008-17. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-BSE-2008-17 and should be
submitted on or before April 28, 2008.

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

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-7116 Filed 4-4-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 139 (Friday, July 19, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 34785-34787]
[FR Doc No: 2019-15356]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2019-0521]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Beaufort Water Festival Air Show, Beaufort, SC

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the
waters of the Beaufort River in Beaufort, SC. The safety zone is needed
to ensure the safety of life on navigable waters of the Beaufort River
during the Beaufort Water Festival Air Show. This rule will prohibit
persons and vessels from entering, transiting through, anchoring in, or
remaining within the

regulated area unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston
(COTP) or a designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 12 p.m. until 5 p.m. on July 20,
2019.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2019-0521in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Chief Jeromy Sherrill, Sector Charleston Office of
Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. The Coast Guard
did not receive necessary information from the event sponsor for this
year's event until June 20, 2019. The Coast Guard has an existing
special local regulation for this event in 33 CFR 100.701, Table to
Sec.  100.701, paragraph (g) Line 3; however, the existing regulation
only covers the event when it is scheduled on the second week of June.
This temporary rule is necessary to provide for the safety of
participants, spectators, and other vessels navigating the surrounding
waterways during the air show.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be impracticable because the event is taking place on
July 20, 2019, and immediate action is needed to respond to the
potential safety hazards associated with this event.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70041 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1233). The Captain of the Port Charleston
(COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the
Beaufort Water Festival Air Show on July 20, 2019 present a safety
concern for anyone within the safety zone. This rule is needed to
protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable
waters within the safety zone during the air show.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a safety zone from 12 p.m. until 5 p.m. on
July 20, 2019. The safety zone will encompass a portion of the waterway
that is 700 feet wide by 2600 feet in length on the waters of the
Beaufort River in Beaufort, SC. The duration of the zone is intended to
protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these
navigable waters during the Beaufort Water Festival Air Show. No vessel
or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining
permission from the COTP or a designated representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, duration and available exceptions to the enforcement of the
safety zone. The regulated area will impact small designated areas of
the Beaufort River for only 5 hours and thus is limited in time and
scope. Furthermore, the rule will allow vessels to seek permission to
enter the zone. Non-participant persons and vessels may enter, transit
through, anchor in, or remain within the regulated area during the
enforcement periods if authorized by the COTP or a designated
representative. Vessels not able to enter, transit through, anchor in,
or remain within the regulated area without authorization from the COTP
or a designated representative may operate in the surrounding areas
during the 5 hour enforcement period. The Coast Guard will issue a
Local Notice to Mariners and a Broadcast Notice to Mariners, allowing
mariners to make alternative plans or seek permission to transit the
zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you

wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-
REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against
small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy
or action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section above.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01 and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series),
which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have
determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting only 5 hours that
will prohibit entry within 700 feet wide by 2600 feet in length on the
waters of the Beaufort River in Beaufort, SC. It is categorically
excluded from further review under paragraph L 60(a) in Table 3-1 of
U.S. Coast Guard Environmental Planning Implementing Procedures 5090.1.
A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination
is available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T07-0463 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T07-0463  Safety Zone; Beaufort Water Festival Air Show,
Beaufort, SC.

    (a) Location. This rule establishes a safety zone on certain waters
of the Beaufort River, Beaufort, SC. The rule creates a regulated area
that will encompass a portion of the waterway that is 700 feet wide by
2600 feet in length on waters of the Beaufort River encompassed within
the following points: (1) 32[deg]25'47'' N/080[deg]40'44'' W, (2)
32[deg]25'41'' N/080[deg]40'14'' W, (3) 32[deg]25'35'' N/
080[deg]40'16'' W, (4) 32[deg]25'40'' N/080[deg]40'46'' W.
    All coordinates are North American Datum 1983.
    (b) Definition. As used in this section, designated representative
means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain,
petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel and a
Federal, State, and local officer designated by or assisting the
Captain of the Port Charleston (COTP) in the enforcement of the safety
zone.
    (c) Regulations. (1) Under the general safety zone regulations in
subpart C of this part, you may not enter the safety zone described in
paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the COTP or the
COTP's designated representative.
    (2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's
representative by contacting the U.S. Coast Guard Sector Charleston
Command Center via VHF-FM marine channel 16 or at<PHONE_NUMBER>. Those
in the safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions
given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.
    Enforcement period. This rule will be enforced from 12 p.m. until 5
p.m. on July 20, 2019.

    Dated: July 15, 2019.
J.W. Reed,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Charleston.
[FR Doc. 2019-15356 Filed 7-18-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 132 (Thursday, July 10, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39334-39336]
[FR Doc No: 2014-16034]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 62

[EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0475; FRL-9913-32-Region 3]

Approval and Promulgation of State Air Quality Plans for
Designated Facilities and Pollutants; Delaware, District of Columbia,
and West Virginia; Control of Emissions From Existing Sewage Sludge
Incinerator Units

AGENCY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct
final action to approve the Clean Air Act (CAA) negative declarations
for the State of Delaware, the District of Columbia, and the State of
West Virginia for existing sewage sludge incinerator (SSI) units. These
negative declarations certify that SSI units subject to the
requirements of sections 111(d) and 129 of the CAA do not exist within
the jurisdictional boundaries of the Delaware Department of Natural
Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC), the District Department of
the Environment (DDOE), and the West Virginia Department of
Environmental Protection (WVDEP). EPA is accepting the negative
declarations in accordance with the requirements of the CAA.

DATES: This rule is effective on September 8, 2014 without further
notice, unless EPA receives adverse written comment by August 11, 2014.
If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely withdrawal of
the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform the public
that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2013-0475 by one of the following methods:
    A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    B. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2013-0475, Brian Rehn, Acting Associate
Director, Office of Permits and Air Toxics, Mailcode 3AP10, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2013-0475. 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 information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the submittals are
available at the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control, 89 Kings Highway, P.O. Box 1401, Dover, Delaware
19903, the District of Columbia Department of the Environment, Air
Quality Division, 1200 1st Street NE., Fifth Floor, Washington, DC
20002, and the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection,
Division of Air Quality, 601 57th Street SE., Charleston, West Virginia
25304.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Gordon,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    EPA's statutory authority for the regulation of new and existing
solid waste incineration units is outlined in CAA sections 129 and 111.
Section 129 of the CAA is specific to solid waste combustion, and
requires EPA to establish performance standards for each category of
solid waste incineration units. These standards include new source
performance standards (NSPS), applicable to new units, and emissions
guidelines for existing units. Under CAA section 129, an NSPS or
emissions guideline must contain numerical emissions limitations for
particulate matter, opacity (as appropriate), sulfur dioxide, hydrogen
chloride, oxides of nitrogen, carbon monoxide, lead, cadmium, mercury,
and dioxins and dibenzofurans. While the NSPS is directly applicable to
affected facilities, the emissions guidelines for existing units are
intended for states to use in order to develop a state plan to submit
to EPA. Once approved by EPA, the state plan becomes federally
enforceable. If a State does not submit an approvable state plan to
EPA, EPA is responsible for enforcing and implementing a federal plan.
    While section 129 of the CAA is specific to the combustion of solid
waste, it also relies on CAA section 111 in promulgating the NSPS and
emissions guidelines. Section 111 of the CAA gives EPA the statutory
authority to promulgate an NSPS and/or emissions guideline for certain
categories of stationary sources, and describes the procedural
requirements for the development and implementation of these standards.
More specifically, CAA section 111(d) requires EPA to establish
procedures for States to submit a state plan to EPA for the regulation
of existing sources whenever emissions guidelines are promulgated. The
general provisions for the submittal and approval of state plans are
codified in 40 CFR part 60, subpart B and 40 CFR part 62, subpart A.
    States have options other than submitting a state plan in order to
fulfill their obligations under CAA sections 111(d) and 129. If a State
does not have any existing solid waste incineration units for the
relevant emissions guidelines, 40 CFR 60.23(b) and 62.06

provide that a letter may be submitted certifying that no such units
exist within the State (i.e., negative declaration) in lieu of a state
plan. The negative declaration exempts the State from the requirements
of subpart B that would otherwise require the submittal of a CAA
section 111(d)/129 plan.
    On March 21, 2011 (76 FR 15372), EPA promulgated new source
performance standards, 40 CFR part 60, subpart LLLL, and emission
guidelines, subpart MMMM, for new and existing SSI units, respectively.
Existing SSI units are units that commenced construction on or before
October 14, 2010. The DNREC, DDOE, and WVDEP have each determined that
there are no existing SSI units subject to CAA sections 111(d) and 129
requirements in their individual air pollution control jurisdictions.
In order to fulfill obligations under CAA sections 111(d) and 129,
DNREC, DDOE, and WVDEP submitted negative declaration letters to EPA on
February 7, 2012, July 26, 2012, and August 27, 2012, respectively. The
submittal of these declarations exempts DNREC, DDOE, and WVDEP from the
requirement to submit a state plan for existing SSI units.

II. Final EPA Action

    In this direct final action, EPA is amending part 62 to reflect
receipt of the negative declaration letters from DNREC, DDOE, and
WVDEP. EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because EPA
views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse
comment. However, in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of this Federal
Register, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the
proposal to approve the negative declarations if adverse comments are
filed. This rule will be effective on September 8, 2014 without further
notice unless EPA receives adverse comment by August 11, 2014. If EPA
receives adverse comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take
effect. EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule
based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment
period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so
at this time.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely notifies the public of EPA receipt of negative declarations from
air pollution control agencies without any existing SSI units in their
jurisdiction. This action imposes no requirements. Accordingly, EPA
certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this action does not impose any
additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it 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). This action also does not have tribal
implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999).
This action merely approves negative declarations for existing SSI
units from DNREC, DDOE, and WVDEP and does not alter the relationship
or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the
Clean Air Act. This action also is not subject to Executive Order 13045
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically
significant.
    With regard to negative declarations for existing solid waste
incineration facilities received by EPA from states, EPA's role is to
notify the public of the receipt of such negative declarations and
revise 40 CFR part 62 accordingly. In this context, in the absence of a
prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus
standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to approve or disapprove a CAA
section 111(d)/129 plan negative declaration submission for failure to
use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA,
when it reviews a CAA section 111(d)/129 negative declaration, to use
VCS in place of a section 111(d)/129 negative declaration that
otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the
requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This action
does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    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).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    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 September 8, 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 this Federal Register, rather than file an immediate
petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can
withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed
rulemaking. This action approving negative declarations for SSI units
from DNREC, DDOE, and WVDEP may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Aluminum, Fertilizers, Fluoride,
Intergovernmental relations, Paper and paper products industry,
Phosphate, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides,
Sulfur acid plants, Waste treatment and disposal.

    Dated: June 11, 2014.
W.C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

    40 CFR part 62 is amended as follows:

PART 62--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF STATE PLANS FOR DESIGNATED
FACILITIES AND POLLUTANTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 62 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart I--Delaware

0
2. Subpart I is amended by adding after Sec.  62.1990 an undesignated
center heading and Sec.  62.1995 to read as follows:

Emissions From Existing Sewage Sludge Incineration Units

Sec.  62.1995  Identification of plan--negative declaration.

    Letter from the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control, submitted to EPA on February 7, 2012, certifying
that there are no known existing sewage sludge incineration units in
the State of Delaware.

Subpart J--District of Columbia

0
3. Subpart J is amended by adding after Sec.  62.2155 an undesignated
center heading and Sec.  62.2160 to read as follows:

Emissions From Existing Sewage Sludge Incineration Units

Sec.  62.2160  Identification of plan--negative declaration.

    Letter from the District Department of the Environment, submitted
to EPA on July 26, 2012, certifying that there are no known existing
sewage sludge incineration units in the District of Columbia.

Subpart XX--West Virginia

0
4. Subpart XX is amended by adding after Sec.  62.12165 an undesignated
center heading and Sec.  62.12170 to read as follows:

Emissions From Existing Sewage Sludge Incineration Units

Sec.  62.12170  Identification of plan--negative declaration.

    Letter from the West Virginia Department of Environmental
Protection, submitted to EPA on August 27, 2012, certifying that there
are no known existing sewage sludge incineration units in the State of
West Virginia.

[FR Doc. 2014-16034 Filed 7-9-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Ol= FI°' l° OI= ° N° ORMA° ON AND R° GU° ATORY OFFICE OF ° AN° G° ME° AN° BUDG° NATURAL RESOURCES, ENERGY AN° ° GRI° L° RE BRANCH 725 t7th Str° ¢ t, NW, Room Office: 202= 395= 3084/ Fax: 202 395 7285 Fax#:. Pages: °,[°' including this cov° r sheet,

Commetrl'( s): John Asalone Keith B ¢ ltan Amy Flynn Art Fraas Jim Laity Amanda L ¢ °

Margie h° aJanoski David Rostker Rut" h Solomon Rich Theroux Edmond Toy and analY° ical. tools to ide° tify a significant contribution from upwind statesto° owngi° d States.. areavailable, the State's SIP submissionmdst addre. Ss the existence., of . the Contribution and the emission red° cti0ns . necessary to eliminate the Significant contrib% ti0n..:. In . other. cirgumsta° ceS, . however, the tools and informa°. i0n°>. n°. y nOt" b°  available['. rn such circumstances, the sec°: i0n." ii0 ( iaiiI2)..( D) S° P [. submission should indicate that the necessary/ infO° mat/ ion . is " hot a° ai° able at the time the submission ± S made ° h°° 2. a° °

°°"°",,'°' ''': ' "' 1 '

at. a:  l,° ez": time after i. he i#,_. it ± al section 3; 10 ( a) (°.) ( D)

° u. bm ± ssions to ± ssue a SZ° aal.. l.. L. mder secb: l_ on ' tlO.( k.)( 5) to States to satisfy the section ll0( a).( 2).( D) obligations if s°_° ch °°:.: arr° n° c° based upon s° bseque° tly available data analyses. This is precisely the circt° mstance that was presented at the time of the NOx SIP Call in 1998 when EPA issued a section ll0( k) ( 5) SIP call to states re° arding their section ll0 ( a) ( 2) ( D)

obligations on the basis of new.. information that was deve! oped years after the States.' S! Ps had been previously, approved as satisfying section ll0( a)( 2)( D) without providing for additional controls since the information available at = he earlier poin° in time did not indicate tAe need for such additional controls.

Not only is this sequencing consistent with the CAA, it is =°;°= consistent with sound policy considerations. The upwind reductions required by today's action will facilitate attainment planning by the States affected by ° ransport do. wind. ° ather than being " premature" as some co enters suggested, ° Abeliev4 that re° iring the States to address the upwimd transport contr& bution to do. wind nonattainment earlier in the process as a first step is °

°

reasonable approach and is fully consistent w° th the statutory structure. This approach will allow do. wind S° ates to develop SIPs that address their share of emissions with knowledge of what measures upwind States will have adopted.° °

addition, most of the downwind States that will benefit by today's rulemaki° g are themselves significant contributors to violations of the standards further do. wind and, , thus, are subject to the same retirements as the StaLes further upwind. The red° ct° ons these do. wind States must implement due to their additional role as upwind States will help red° ce their o° PM2.5 and 8 ho° r ozone problems on the same schedule as emissions reductions for the 4 obligations imposed upon designated nonattainment areas. As formal des ± gnation unde° the generally applicable provisions of section i07 ( d) could take up to 3 years following promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, and section 172( b) allows up to 3 additional years for Stat. e submission of nonattainment area SIPs,

the conumenters concluded that States could not meet section ll0( a) ( 2)( I) on ° he schedule of section ll0( a)( 1). From the fact that States could not meet all of the elements of the section ll0( a) ( 2) requirement within 3 years, the commenters inferred that EPA cannot require States to meet any of the requirements ± n section 1.10( a) ( 9.), including section ll0( a) ( 2) ( D).

° not ; b.°_ G°.°__ The EPA agrees that there are certain provisions of section ll0( a)( 2) that are gover°] ed not by the schedule of section ll0( a)(!), but instead by the timing requirement of section 172( b), e. g., section ll0( a) ( 2) ( I). Other items in section ll0( a)( 2), however, do not depend upon pr ± or designations in order for States to develop a SIP to begin to comply w ± ° h ° hem, e. g., section ll0( a) ( 2) ( B) ( pertaining to monitoring); section ll0( a) ( 2) ( E) ( stipulatin° that States must p° ovide for adequate resources); and section l! 0( a)

( pertaining to modeling). " applicable, not each requirement regardless of applicability.

In the current situation, EPA believes that it is appropriate to view the CAA as requiring States to make a submission to meet the requirement of section ll0( a) ( 2) ( D) in accordance with the schedule of section ll0( a) ( i), rather than under the schedule for nonattainment S! Ps in section 172(°). °

b. EPA's Authority to Require Section ll0( a)( 2)( D) Submissions Prior to Formal Designation of Nonattainn° nt Areas under Section 107.

A number of commenters argued that EPA has no authority to require States tO comply with section ll0( a) ( 2) ( D) until after EPA formally designates nonattainment areas for the PM2.5 and. 8

hour ozone NAAQS. 7 These commenters claimed that section 107( d)

As noted earller, what.° a° ° :°.° to meet section ll0( a) ( 2) ° vary, depending upon the specific facts and circumstances surroundin° a new or revised NAAQS. See, e. g., ° rQDgsed Kecr° irement°. for ° Dlementation Plans and Ambient Air Quality Surveillance for SuI.$ Dr Ox ± des ( Sulfur Dioxide) National Ambient Air Quality Stan. da. rd, 60 FR 12492, 12505 ( March 7, 1995). In the context of a proposed 5 minute NAAQS for SO2, EPA °' tentatively concluded that existing S° P provisions £ or the 24 boutand annual S02 N° QS were probably sufficient to °' i ° meet many elements of section ll0( a)( 2). The EPA did not ° explicitly discuss State obligations under section ll0( a) ( 2)( D) for the 5 minute N° QS in the proposal° buu th°

°'° Anature of the pollutant, the sources, and the p. r° vc° d N°. AQC°

a crltlCal reglonwlde concern that lJ is for the PM2.5 nd 8 hour ozone N° QS °

< (,°  r.°

The EPA notes that the 8 hour ozon° ° esignati° ns/ became effective on June 15, 2004, and that the PM2.5 designations w° ll become ° ff° ctive on April 5, 2005. The EPA believes 13 " nonattainment areas," EPA concludes that the section does not presuppose the existence of formally designated nonattainment areas, but rather to arnb ± ent air quality that does not attain the NAAQS.

The EPA believes that this plain reading of the provisions is also the most logical approach. A reading that section ll0( a) ( 2) ( D) means that Stateshave no obligation °° r°'° e° to address interstate tzanspozt unless and until there are formally designated nonattain° ent areas pursuant to section 107 would be inconsistent with the larger goal of the CAA to. encourage expeditious attainment of the NAAQS. F°° A it ic from currently available air quality monitoring data and modeling °°

that many areas of the eastern portion of the country are in violation of both the PM2.5 and 8 hour ozo° p NAAQ, S°. ,,° e°°

.° v= ii° m° eAir eD/ ality modeling studi° s° demonstra°.° hat NOx emissions from sources in upwind States a° e contributing ° o violations of the PM2.5 and 8 hour ozone NAAQS in downwind States ° Following the example of the NOx S! P Call, ° PA has an effective analytical approach to determine whether that interstate contribution is significant, in accordance wi° h section ll0( a) ( 2) ( D)° Thus, EPA currently has the ° nformat ± on and tools that it needs to determine what the initial PM2.5 and 8 hour ozone S! Ps from upwind States should include as appropriate NOx and emissions seductions in order to prevent emissions that significantly contribute to nonat° ainrnent in downwind States.

°

kh: r °:°.°,:. d. n, d:_ SLa° Je°, °.° L u, both PM2 .5 and ozone are egzonal phenomena,° znforma° ion° the 9recise boundaries of ° a° t° ng until° completion of. formal designau° on o[

nonattai° ent area boundaries° °,° t; he c°. n_° r°,, ° 2A be° i° ve°

°

The EPK believes° at the co. enters' . v& ew of ° e down °

whether°°° °

si°°° As extensive network of air quality monitors to identify which States have monitors that are currently showing violations of the PM2.5 and 8 hour ozone N° QS. ° °

the NP°, EPA stated that based upon data for the 3 year period from 2000 2002, " 120 counties with monitors exceed the annual PM2,5 N°_ QS and 297 counties with mo'ni.° or z'eadings exceed the 8 hour ozone N°_ QS" ( 69 FR 4566, 458!;

18 ST/& 0" a £ Z: OT S00°° 0° 6N January 30, 2004) ( emphasis added). The geographic distribution of monitors with data registering current violations indicated that there is nonattainment of both the PM205 and 8 hour ozone NAAQS throughout the eastern United States and ± n other portions of the country including California. For analyses of future ambient conditions, EPA used various modeling tools to predict that, in the absence of the CA! R, there would be counties withmonitors that would continue to show violations of the PM2.5 and 8 hour ozone N° QS in 2010 and 2015, In subsequent steps, ° PA analyzed whether the e° ssions from upwind States contributed to the a° ien% conditions at the monitors registering N° QS violations in do, wind States, and thereafter determined whether that contribution would be significant pursuant to section llo( a) ( 2) ( D).

In °

of th° se stresS, however, did to kn< the pre s°° boundar ± e°° he° n° nattai° ° areas th: ma'

'° u mat y d°° status '_ Im° a give° countY/ s I ° d ° r° up° to° ed°° t ° ea° urem°° ° he. °

° th%.°/ p° i° vs that ° the appropriae° zinformation ° EPA to at \<""% ar° e ultlma° e<° ze .°' aring on " Th% s° z° f such in nonatta° inment ii of S sn ¢ areas, is not ° te transport another : ing mo; whether e or tl cont° nonat that th State or es shoulc with s° ( a) ( 2) (°.

° e significant ' ibution  sis upon with tots t re,

wi° out regard °/_

to precise of the } airument are° that may /

ult Z result °

formal° ° tion p° cess under °... A.., ile.. r°.° s°., EPA l° e° disagrees with the commenters' assertion that the provisions of TEA 2° preclude EPA's interpretation of the timing requirements of sections ll0( a) ( i)

and ll0( a) (°). However, TEA° I did address the need to create a.

new network of monitors to assess the geographic scope and location of PH2.5 nonattainment.. Also, TEA 21 did provide that such a network should be up and running by December 31, 1999.

TEA 21 did lay out a schedule for the collection of data over a period of 3 years in order to make subsequent regulatory decisions. From these facts, the commenters concluded that TEA 21 necessarily contradicts EPA's position that States must now take 2O action to address significant contribution to downwind nonattainment in their initial section ll0( a) ( I) SIPs, merely because the initial three yea9 period following the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS specified in section ll0( a) ( i) has expired.

The EPA believes that nothing in TEA 21 explicitly or implicitly altere the timin° recluirem%° ts, of; s° ion ° 10° a)( 1)

for compliance with section If0 ( a)( 2)( D)] The provisions of TEA

21 pertained to the installatlon of ° network of monitors for PM2.5, and to the timing of designatlon decisions for PM2.5 and 8

hour ozone. To be specific, TEA 2$ had two primary purpose° fo° Y°° the new NAAQS: ( i) to gathe° information " for use in the °.° D° n°'°

determination of area attainment or nonattainment designations"

°' for the PM2.5 NAAQS; and ( 2) ° o ensure that States had adequate time to consider guidance from EPA concern ± ng " drawing area boundaries prior to submlttin° area designations" for the 8 hour ozone NAAQS. TEA° I sections 6101( b) ( 1) and ( 2). The EPA interprets the third stated purpose of T° A 21 to refe° to ensuring consistency of timinQ between the Regional Haze program requirements and nhe PM2.5 NAAQS requirements. With respect to timing, TEA 21 similarly on! y referred to the dates by which States and ° PA should take their respective actions concerning designations. For PM2.5, TEA 21 provided that States were required "  o submit designations referred to in section 2], iiO( a) ( 2)( D).

The co° menters suggested that because Congress provided more time for making forma! designations pursuant to section 107, it necessarily follows that States should not have to meet the requirements of section ll0( a) ( 2) ( D) on the schedule o° section ll0( a) ( i). The EPA believes that Congress did not, through TEA 21 or other actions, alter the existing submission schedule for SIPs to address interstate transport. By contrast, Congress did explicitly alter the schedule for submission of plan revisions to address Regional Haze. From this, EPA infers that Congress did not intend ZPA to delay action to address the issue of interstate transport for the 8 hour or PM 2.5 NAAQS. Thus, EPA must still ensure that States submit SiPs in accordance, with the substantive requirements of section ll0( a)( 2)( D). !° ecause EPA and the States now have the data an° analyses t, o e° tablish the pre° ence and magnitude of interstate transport, Athe Agency believes that it is now appropriate to require the Act xeq° i° States to address interstate transport at this time in the manner set forth in today's rule.

c. EPA's Authority to Require Section llO( a)( 2)( D) Submissions Prior to Sta° e Submission of Nonat° ainment A° ea Plans Under Section 172.

Some commenters suggested that EPA cannot determine the existence of a significan5 contribution from upwind States to downwind States until EPA actually receives the nonattainment area SIPs from each State and evaluates how much " residual"

°

oa°_°.) .................

° equim e dow° wind States .°,° . E.,.,_, c.° m,..°, s.,.*.° ,,..,..,

°°

have to cons° ruc. t SIPs to attain ° he N° QS without firs°

knowing what upwind States might ultimately do to reduce interstate transport. Presumablyj t _ t°_° o_°]_ °.° Z. amh the ° downwind States may choose to control their ow° local emissions sources more aggressively° inAupwind States installation of highly cost effective emission controls,

notwithstanding the continued slgnmfzca t impacts of emissions: r from upwind sources on downwind States. Alternatively, the tq° mmr°!

may be that EpA a° wa ± t until submiss £ on of upwind State nonattainment area SZPs to discover whether and to what degree the SIPs address intersta £ e tramsport to downwind States.

For reasons already d° scussed more fully above, EPA does not believe that the statute requires =.=,? A t°°°°° a " wait and see"

approach to discover what, if anything, States may ultimately do to address the problem of regional £ nterstate transport. Sect ± on ll0( a) ( i) requires " each" StaLe to submit a SIP within 3 years after a new or revised N°: AQS addressing the requirements section ll0 ( a) ( 2) ( D) L °

°, °=° °° ave the data and the analyses needed to establish the existence of interstate transport of pollutants and to determine whether there is a significant contribution to nonattainment or interference with maintenance by one . State in another State are available,° EPA believes °[ hat ° t° ° ay ° r= a° i°:°

° °° n Lo act upon that information prior to State SIP submissions to ensure that States address such contribution e° editiously, as it is doin° in this rul° akin°.

° gency/ d wo° ld r) s° it i° ° n° e° essary/ and avo° i°? ays/ in ,.

°

addres° he regional °

to assist the States °

comDonen° of the nonattai° ent problem in a way that is e° itable,

timely, cost effective, and certain.

The EPA acknowledges tha° historically, especially zn the case of 1 hour ozone, the Agency . has nou had the data and the analytical tools to help upwind States to address interstate transport as early in the S! P process as it is doing today for PM2.5 and 0 hour ozone. The C° k has required States to regulate 25 EZ: OT Given that EPA and the States° equisite information to identify interstate transport at this° stage of SIP development, , EPA believes, based upon its experience in implementing the l hour ozone NAAQS, that it is preferable to take ° action to address the regional transport component of the PM2.5 and 8 hour ozone nonattairnaent problem. States, both upwind and downwind, will still have an obligation to control emissions from sources within their boundaries for the purposes of local area attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. The EPA does not believe, however, that it is either requi° ed by the statute, or in accordance with sound policy, for the Agenc° to wait until submission of the nonattainme° t, area S° Ps of downwind States to discover whether or not those SIPs will control local sources sufficiently to provide for eventual attainment regardless of continued significant contribution through interstate transport from upwind States. To the contrary, past experience with the 1

hour ozone NAAQS has demonstrated that delayed action to address the interstate component of nona° tairn° ent will potentially lead to delays in attainment as downwind areas str° ggle to overcome the impacts of transport. °

a number of scientific and technical assessments of ozone and . PM2.5 by the NKC and the Ozone Transport Assessment Group l°° x° m°°

°

interstate transport °

a crit £ cal° ° n developing SIPs,

27 °$' d 7U ± O ± The EPA has concluded that the proposed 18 month schedule is reasonable ° iven the circumstances and given the scope of the actions that we are requiring States to take. We issued the and 8 hour ozone NAAQS revisions in July 1997. More than 3 years have already elapsed since promulgation of the NAAQS, and States have not submitted S! Ps to address their section ll0( a) ( 2) ( D)

obligations under the new NAAQS0 We recognize that litigation " over the new PM2.5 and 8 hour ozone NAAQS created substantial uncertainty ....... u^.°

°° ° n_°.° u° d° p° 7° l° the new NAAQS,

and that this ° certaint° Q° ac. az° rendered it difficult for States to develop S° Ps. Moreover, in the case of PM2.5, additional time was needed °° of an ade° ate monitoring network, collect° at least° yea° s, of data from )°),°) .... °__°

I°°° in ° he NP°, the SNPR, and today's action,

° provided States with a great deal of data and analysis concerning air quality and control costs, as well as policy ' n judgments from EPA concernl g the appropriate cxiter £ a for determinin° whether upwind sources contribute s £ gn° ficantly to do° wind nonatta £ nment under section ll0( a) ( Z) { D) We recognize 31