[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 183 (Thursday, September 20, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47622-47623]
[FR Doc No: 2018-20503]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2017-D-6526]

Grandfathering Policy for Packages and Homogenous Cases of
Product Without a Product Identifier; Guidance for Industry;
Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing
the availability of a final guidance for industry entitled
``Grandfathering Policy for Packages and Homogenous Cases of Product
Without a Product Identifier.'' This guidance specifies whether and
under what circumstances packages and homogenous cases of product not
labeled with a product identifier shall be grandfathered from certain
requirements of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act).
This guidance finalizes the draft guidance issued on November 27, 2017.

DATES: The announcement of the guidance is published in the Federal
Register on September 20, 2018.

ADDRESSES: You may submit either electronic or written comments on
Agency guidances at any time as follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2017-D-6526 for ``Grandfathering Policy for Packages and Homogenous
Cases of Product Without a Product Identifier.'' Received comments will
be placed in the docket and, except for those submitted as
``Confidential Submissions,'' publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m.
and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish
your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you
can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of
your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
    You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)).
    Submit written requests for single copies of this guidance to the
Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research,
Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale
Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, or the Office of
Communication, Outreach, and Development, Center for Biologics
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 3128, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send
one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing
your requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic
access to the guidance document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Abha Kundi, Office of Compliance,
Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration,
10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry
entitled ``Grandfathering Policy for Packages and Homogenous Cases of
Product Without a Product Identifier.'' On November 27, 2013, the Drug
Supply Chain Security Act (DSCSA) (Title II of Pub. L. 113-54) was
signed into law. Section 202 of the DSCSA added section 582 to the FD&C
Act (21 U.S.C. 360eee-1), which established product tracing
requirements for manufacturers, repackagers, wholesale distributors,
and dispensers. The DSCSA phases in its requirements over a 10-year
period.
    A critical set of phased product tracing requirements outlined in
section 582 of the FD&C Act relates to the product identifier. Among
its provisions, section 582 of the FD&C Act requires that each package
and homogenous case of product in the pharmaceutical distribution
supply chain bear a product identifier that is encoded with the
product's standardized numerical identifier, lot number, and expiration
date by specific dates. Under the statute, manufacturers were required
to begin affixing or imprinting a product identifier to each package
and homogenous case of a product intended to be introduced into
commerce no later than November 27, 2017. Repackagers are required to
do the same no later than November 27, 2018.
    Sections 582(c)(2), (d)(2), and (e)(2)(A)(iii) of the FD&C Act
restrict trading partners' ability to engage in transactions involving
packages and homogenous cases of product that are not labeled with a
product identifier after specific dates. Beginning November 27, 2018,
repackagers may not engage in a transaction involving a package or
homogenous case of a product that is not encoded with a product
identifier. Similar restrictions go into effect for wholesale
distributors and dispensers on November 27, 2019, and November 27,
2020, respectively.
    In addition, section 582 of the FD&C Act requires trading partners
to verify product identifiers on packages and homogenous cases starting
on November 27, 2017, for manufacturers (section 582(b)(4)); on
November 27, 2019, for wholesale distributors (section 582(c)(4)); on
November 27, 2020, for dispensers (section 582(d)(4)); and on November
27, 2018, for repackagers (section 582(e)(4)). Manufacturers,
repackagers, wholesale distributors, and dispensers are also required
to verify the product identifier of a saleable returned package or
sealed homogenous case on November 27, 2017, November 27, 2018,
November 27, 2019, and November 27, 2020, respectively.
    In section 582(a)(5)(A) of the FD&C Act, Congress directed FDA to
issue guidance specifying ``whether and under what circumstances
product that is not labeled with a product identifier and that is in
the pharmaceutical supply chain at the time at the time of the
effective date of the requirements of [section 582] shall be exempted''
from the product tracing requirements discussed previously. The
guidance addresses this requirement. As explained in the guidance, only
packages and homogenous cases of product that are in the pharmaceutical
distribution supply chain at the time of the effective date of the
requirements of section 582 are eligible for grandfathering under
section 582(a)(5)(A) of the FD&C Act.
    In the Federal Register of November 27, 2017 (82 FR 56033), FDA
issued a notice announcing the availability of the draft version of
this guidance. The comment period for the draft guidance ended January
26, 2018. FDA received approximately 10 comments on the draft guidance.
In response to received comments or on its own initiative, FDA made
several changes. The most significant change FDA made was to revise the
grandfathering exemption to include products repackaged by a repackager
before November 27, 2018. FDA made this change in response to comments
indicating that repackagers will need time beyond November 27, 2018, to
sell such product. In addition, FDA made editorial and formatting
changes to improve clarity.
    This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance
practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the
current thinking of FDA on ``Grandfathering Policy for Packages and
Homogenous Cases of Product Without a Product Identifier.'' It does not
establish any rights for any person and, with the exception of
specified material in section IV, is not binding on FDA or the public.
You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of
the applicable statutes and regulations. This guidance is not subject
to Executive Order 12866.

II. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the internet may obtain the guidance at
https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm, https://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm, or
https://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: September 14, 2018.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-20503 Filed 9-19-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register: July 31, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 146)]
[Notices]
[Page 38182]
[DOCID:fr31jy09-52]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER09-1482-000]

Sagebrush Power Partners, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

July 27, 2009.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Sagebrush Power Partners, 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 August 17, 2009.
    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 St., 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 e-mail notification when a
document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any
FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call
(866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-18303 Filed 7-30-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 131 (Wednesday, July 9, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38883-38884]
[FR Doc No: 2014-15997]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13884-001]

Pennamaquan Tidal Power LLC; Notice of Initial Study Plan
Meetings and Revised Process Plan

    On June 5, 2014, Commission staff issued a letter to Pennamaquan
Tidal Power LLC (Pennamaquan Tidal) stating that Pennamaquan Tidal's
proposed study plan for the Pennamaquan Tidal Power Plant Project (P-
13884) filed on December 12, 2013, meets the requirements of section
5.11 of the Commission's regulations and that the Integrated Licensing
Process (ILP) can resume. According to section 5.11(e) of the
Commission's regulations, the next step in the ILP is the initial study
plan meeting. In its June 5, 2014, letter, Commission staff indicated
that the initial study plan meeting must be held within 75 days of, but
no sooner than 60 days from, June 5, 2014. Accordingly, Pennamaquan
Tidal has scheduled the meetings listed below:

Meetings in Bangor, ME

    Dates and Times: August 6 and 7, 2014. 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Location: Maine Department of Environmental Protection, Eastern
Maine Regional Office, 106 Hogan Road, Bangor, Maine 04401.
    Contact: Ramez Attiya, Pennamaquan Tidal,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Meeting in Pembroke, ME

    Date and Time: August 8, 2014. 12:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m.
    Location: Pembroke Town Office, 48 Old County Road, Pembroke, ME
04666.
    Contact: Ramez Attiya, Pennamaquan Tidal,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    A revised process plan that includes new dates for completing the
ILP is provided below:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Responsible party            Pre-filing milestone               Date \1\              FERC  regulation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pennamaquan......................  Issue Public Notice for   7/19/12                        5.3(d)(2)
                                    NOI/PAD.
Pennamaquan......................  File NOI/PAD with FERC..  7/19/12                        5.5, 5.6
FERC.............................  Initiate Tribal           8/18/12                        5.7
                                    Consultation.
FERC.............................  Issue Notice of           9/14/12                        5.8
                                    Commencement of
                                    Proceeding; Scoping
                                    Document 1 (SD1).
FERC.............................  Project Environmental     10/25/12                       5.8(b)(viii)
                                    Site Review and Scoping  10/26/12
                                    Meetings.
All stakeholders.................  PAD/SD1 Comments and      12/4/12                        5.9
                                    Study Requests Due.
FERC.............................  Issue Scoping Document 2  1/18/13                        5.1
                                    (if needed).
Pennamaquan......................  File Proposed Study Plan  12/12/13                       5.11(a)
                                    (PSP).
All stakeholders.................  Proposed Study Plan       Between 8/4/14 and 8/19/14     5.11(e)
                                    Meeting (scheduled for    \2\
                                    8/6/14 to 8/8/14).
All stakeholders.................  Proposed Study Plan       10/18/14                       5.12
                                    Comments Due.
Pennamaquan......................  File Revised Study Plan.  11/17/14                       5.13(a)
All stakeholders.................  Revised Study Plan        12/2/14                        5.13(b)
                                    Comments Due.

FERC.............................  Director's Study Plan     12/17/14                       5.13(c)
                                    Determination.
Mandatory Conditioning Agencies..  Any Study Disputes Due..  1/6/15                         5.14(a)
Dispute Panel....................  Third Dispute Panel       1/21/15                        5.14(d)(3)
                                    Member Selected.
Dispute Panel....................  Dispute Resolution Panel  1/26/15                        5.14(d)
                                    Convenes.
Pennamaquan......................  Applicant Comments on     1/31/15                        5.14(j)
                                    Study Disputes Due.
Dispute Panel....................  Dispute Resolution Panel  2/5/15                         5.14(j)
                                    Technical Conference.
Dispute Panel....................  Dispute Resolution Panel  2/25/15                        5.14(k)
                                    Findings Issued.
FERC.............................  Director's Study Dispute  3/17/15                        5.14(l)
                                    Determination.
Pennamaquan......................  First Study Season......  Spring/Summer 2015             5.15(a)
Pennamaquan......................  Initial Study Report....  12/17/15                       5.15(c)(1)
All stakeholders.................  Initial Study Report      1/1/16                         5.15(c)(2)
                                    Meeting.
Pennamaquan......................  Initial Study Report      1/16/16                        5.15(c)(3)
                                    Meeting Summary.
All stakeholders.................  Any Disputes/Requests to  2/15/16                        5.15(c)(4)
                                    Amend Study Plan Due.
All stakeholders.................  Responses to Disputes/    3/16/16                        5.15(c)(5)
                                    Amendment Requests Due.
FERC.............................  Director's Determination  4/15/16                        5.15(c)(6)
                                    on Disputes/Amendments.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Second study season if necessary. Schedule would be adjusted accordingly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pennamaquan......................  File Preliminary          12/14/16 \3\                   5.16(a)
                                    Licensing Proposal
                                    (PLP).
All stakeholders.................  PLP Comments Due........  3/14/17                        5.16(e)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ If a due date falls on a weekend or holiday, the due date is the following business day. Dates prior to
  August 2014 are the dates when the events occurred, rather than due dates.
\2\ Commission staff issued a letter on June 5, 2014, requiring the proposed study plan meeting to be held
  between August 4, 2014, and August 19, 2014. Subsequent deadlines in the process plan were calculated from the
  deadline of August 19, 2014.
\3\ The date for filing of the PLP is a staff estimate.

    Dated: July 1, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-15997 Filed 7-8-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: January 25, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 15)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 3859-3862]
[DOCID:fr25ja10-4]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2009-1130]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Baltimore Captain of Port Zone

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary interim rule with request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone in all
navigable waters of the Captain of the Port Baltimore zone. The
temporary safety zone restricts vessels from transiting the zone during
the effective period, unless authorized by the Captain of the Port
Baltimore, or his designated representative. This safety zone is
necessary to protect mariners from the hazards associated with ice in
the navigable waterway.

DATES: This temporary interim rule is effective in the CFR on January
25, 2010 until April 15, 2010. This temporary interim rule is
enforceable with actual notice by Coast Guard personnel beginning on
January 6, 2010. Comments and related material must reach the Coast
Guard on or before February 24, 2010 or reach the Docket Management
Facility by that date.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2009-1130 using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (4) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary interim rule, call or e-mail Ronald L. Houck, Sector
Baltimore Waterways Management Division, Coast Guard; telephone 410-
576-2674, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on
viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted,
without change, to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2009-1130), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material
online (via http://www.regulations.gov) or by fax, mail or hand
delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a
comment online via http://www.regulations.gov, it will be considered
received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment.
If you fax, hand delivery, or mail your comment, it will be considered
as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the
Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and
a mailing address, an e-mail address, or a telephone number in the body
of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions
regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
click on the ``submit a comment'' box, which will then become
highlighted in blue. In the ``Document Type'' drop down menu select
``Proposed Rule'' and insert ``USCG-2009-1130'' in the ``Keyword'' box.
Click ``Search'' then click on the balloon shape in the ``Actions''
column. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit
them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable
for copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would
like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and
material received during the comment period and may change this rule
based on your comments.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
click on the ``read comments'' box, which will then become highlighted
in blue. In the ``Keyword'' box insert ``USCG-2009-1130'' and click
``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column.
You may also visit either the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-
140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. We
have an agreement with the Department of Transportation to use the
Docket Management Facility.

Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act, system of
records notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008
issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for one using one of the four methods specified under
ADDRESSES. Please explain why you believe a public meeting would be
beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will
hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal
Register.

Regulatory Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary interim 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 any delay encountered in this
regulation's effective date by publishing a NPRM would be contrary to
public interest. Immediate action is needed to mitigate the potential
safety hazards associated with ice in the navigable waterway to life
and property.
    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. Due to the unexpected nature and
growth of ice formation in the Upper Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries
and the Chesapeake and Delaware (C & D) Canal, the safety zone is
necessary to protect life and property. Therefore a 30-day notice is
impracticable.

Background and Purpose

    During a moderate or severe winter, frozen waterways present
numerous hazards to vessels. Ice in a waterway may hamper a vessel's
ability to maneuver, and could cause visual aids to navigation to be
submerged, destroyed or moved off station. Ice abrasions and ice
pressure could also compromise a vessel's watertight integrity, and
non-steel hulled vessels would be exposed to a greater risk of hull
breach.
    When ice conditions develop to a point where vessel operations
become unsafe, it becomes necessary to impose operating restrictions to
ensure the safe navigation of vessels. A safety zone is a tool
available to the Captain of the Port (COTP) to restrict and manage
vessel movement when hazardous conditions exist. The COTP Baltimore is
establishing a safety zone within all navigable waters of the COTP
Baltimore zone that will restrict access to certain vessels meeting
certain conditions specified. Those vessels prohibited from entering
the safety zone will be specified via broadcast notice to mariners and
marine safety information bulletins.
    Ice generally begins to form in the Upper Chesapeake Bay and its
tributaries, including the C & D Canal, in late December or early
January. During a moderate or severe winter, ice in navigable waters
can become a serious problem, requiring the use of Federal, State and
private ice breaking resources. The Commander, Coast Guard Sector
Baltimore will use his COTP authority to promote vessel safety in ice-
congested waters and the continuation of waterborne commerce throughout
the cold weather months.
    Ice fields in the Upper Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries move
with prevailing winds and currents. Heavy ice buildups can occur in the
C & D Canal, from Town Point Wharf to Reedy Point. Other areas that are
commonly affected by high volumes of ice are, the Elk River,
Susquehanna River, Patapsco River, Nanticoke River, Wicomico River,
Tangier Sound, Pocomoke River and Sound, and the Potomac River. Once
ice buildup begins it can affect the transit of large ocean-going
vessels. This regulation is intended to mitigate the threat ice in the
COTP Baltimore zone poses to the maritime public.

Discussion of Rule

    A safety zone is being established encompassing the COTP Baltimore
Zone, as described in 33 CFR 3.25-15. The Captain of the Port Baltimore
anticipates only having to enforce certain parts of the regulated area
at certain times. The purpose of this regulation is to promote maritime
safety, and to protect mariners transiting the area from the potential
hazards due to ice conditions that become a threat to navigation. The
COTP will notify the maritime community, via marine broadcasts, of the
location and thickness of the ice as well as the ability of vessels to
transit through the safety zone depending on the prevailing ice
conditions. Prevailing ice conditions will be categorized as Condition
One, Condition Two, or Condition Three.
    Ice Condition One is an emergency condition in which ice has
largely covered the regulated area. Under these conditions, convoys may
be required and restrictions based on shaft horsepower and vessel
transit may be imposed by the COTP on certain vessels seeking to enter
the safety zone.
    Ice Condition Two is an alert condition in which at least 2 inches
of ice begins to form in the regulated area. The COTP Baltimore may
impose restrictions, including but not limited to, those based on shaft
horsepower and hull type restrictions for certain vessels seeking to
enter the safety zone.
    Ice Condition Three is a readiness condition in which weather
conditions are favorable for the formation of ice in the regulated
area. Daily reports for the Coast Guard Stations and commercial vessels
are monitored, and no limitations for vessels seeking to enter the zone
based on vessel traffic, hull type or shaft horsepower are anticipated.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this interim rule after considering numerous statutes
and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order. Although this regulation could hinder or
prevent traffic from transiting the COTP Baltimore Zone, the effect of
this regulation will not be significant because there is little vessel
traffic associated with recreational boating and commercial fishing
during the effective period.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. 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. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which
may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to
operate, transit or anchor in the regulated area, from January 6, 2010
until April 15, 2010. This safety zone will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities due to a lack
of seasonal vessel traffic associated with recreational boating and
commercial fishing during the effective period. Although the safety
zone will apply to the entire COTP Baltimore Zone, the Captain of the
Port Baltimore anticipates only having to enforce certain parts of the
regulated area at certain times. Traffic will be allowed to pass
through the zone with the permission of the COTP Baltimore. Also, the
COTP will notify the maritime community, via marine broadcasts, of the
location and thickness of the ice, as

well as the ability of vessels to transit through the safety zone.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its
effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
    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.

Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

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 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.

Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    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.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually
or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.
This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph
(34)(g), of the Instruction. This rule involves establishing a safety
zone.
    An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

0
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: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306,
3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Pub.
L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add temporary Sec.  165.T05-1130 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T05-1130  Safety zone; Baltimore Captain of the Port Zone.

    (a) Regulated area. The following area is a safety zone: The
navigable waters of the Captain of the Port Baltimore Zone, as
described in 33 CFR 3.25-15.
    (b) Regulations. All persons are required to comply with the
general regulations governing safety zones in 33 CFR 165.23(d) of this
part.
    (1) Vessels are prohibited from entering into or moving within the
safety zone unless they meet the requirements set forth by the Captain
of the Port (COTP) Baltimore for the prevailing ice conditions.
Requirements for entry during periods when the safety

zone is enforced will be described via Marine Safety Radio Broadcast on
VHF-FM marine band radio, channel 22A (157.1 MHZ). Requirements may
include, but are not limited to, the use of convoys, restrictions on
shaft horsepower, and hull type restrictions, dependent on the
prevailing ice conditions and vessel type.
    (2) Persons desiring to transit in the safety zone not meeting the
requirements established by the COTP Baltimore must contact the COTP
Baltimore or his designated representative at telephone number 410-576-
2693 or on VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHZ) to seek permission prior to
transiting the area. If permission is granted, all persons and vessels
shall comply with the instructions of the COTP Baltimore or his
designated representative.
    (3) The Coast Guard vessels enforcing this safety zone can be
contacted on VHF-FM marine band radio channel 16 (156.8 MHZ). Upon
being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel, or other Federal, State, or
local agency vessel, by siren, radio, flashing light, or other means,
the operator of a vessel shall proceed as directed. The COTP Baltimore
and his designated representatives can be contacted at telephone number
410-576-2693.
    (4) The COTP Baltimore or his designated representative will notify
the public of any changes in the status of this safety zone by Marine
Safety Radio Broadcast on VHF-FM marine band radio channel 22A (157.1
MHZ).
    (c) Definitions. As used in this section:
    Captain of the Port Baltimore means the Commander, U.S. Coast Guard
Sector Baltimore, Maryland.
    Designated representative means any Coast Guard commissioned,
warrant, or petty officer who has been authorized by the Captain of the
Port Baltimore to assist in enforcing the safety zone described in
paragraph (b) of this section.
    (d) Enforcement. The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted in the patrol
and enforcement of the zones by Federal, State and local agencies.
    (e) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from January
6, 2010 until April 15, 2010.

    Dated: January 6, 2010.
Mark P. O'Malley,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Baltimore, Maryland.
[FR Doc. 2010-1265 Filed 1-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: December 10, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 236)]
[Notices]
[Page 69713-69714]
[DOCID:fr10de07-106]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2007-0011]

Federal Advisory Council on Occupational Safety and Health

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Request for nominations.

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

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and
Health invites interested parties to submit nominations for membership
on the Federal Advisory Council on Occupational Safety and Health
(FACOSH).

DATES: Nominations for FACOSH must be received by January 9, 2008: You
may submit nominations for FACOSH, identified by Docket No. OSHA-2007-
0011, by any of the following methods:
    Electronically: Nominations, including attachments, may be
submitted electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, the Federal

eRulemaking Portal. Follow the online instructions for submitting
nominations.
    Facsimile: If your nomination, including attachments, does not
exceed 10 pages, you may fax it to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-
1648.
    Mail, express delivery, hand delivery, messenger or courier
service: Submit three copies of your nomination to the OSHA Docket
Office, Room N-2625, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY number (877)
889-5627). Deliveries (hand, express mail, messenger and courier
service) are accepted during the Department of Labor's and Docket
Office's normal business hours, 8:15 a.m.-4:45 p.m., e.t.
    Instructions: All nominations for FACOSH must include the Agency
name and docket number for this Federal Register notice (Docket No.
OSHA-2007-0011). All submissions in response to this Federal Register
notice, including personal information provided, will be posted without
change at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions

interested parties about submitting personal information such as social
security numbers and birth dates. Because of security-related
procedures, submitting nominations by regular mail may result in a
significant delay in their receipt. Please contact the OSHA Docket
Office, at the address above, for information about security procedures
for submitting nominations by hand delivery, express delivery, and
messenger or courier service. For additional information on submitting
nominations, see the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below.
    Docket: To read or download submissions, go to http://www.regulations.gov.
 All documents in the docket are listed in the

http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some

documents (e.g., copyrighted material) are not publicly available to
read or download through http://www.regulations.gov. All submissions,

including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and
copying at the OSHA Docket Office at the address above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Diane Brayden, Director, OSHA,
Office of Federal Agency Programs, Room N-3622, U.S. Department of
Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone
(202) 693-2122; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health invites interested parties to submit
nominations for membership on FACOSH. FACOSH is authorized to advise
the Secretary of Labor on all matters relating to the occupational
safety and health of Federal employees (Occupational Safety and Health
Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 668), 5 U.S.C. 7902, Executive Order 13446).
This includes providing advice on how to reduce and keep to a minimum
the number of injuries and illnesses in the Federal workforce and how
to encourage the establishment and maintenance of effective
occupational safety and health programs in each Federal department and
agency.
    FACOSH is comprised of 16 members, who the Secretary of Labor
appoints, and is chaired by the Assistant Secretary. The composition of
FACOSH and the number of new members to be appointed at this time are
as follows:
     Eight members are management representatives from Federal
departments or agencies. Three management representatives will be
appointed; and
     Eight members are representatives of labor organizations
representing Federal employees. Three labor representatives will be
appointed.
    FACOSH members serve staggered three-year terms, unless the member
becomes unable to serve, resigns, ceases to be qualified to serve, or
is removed by the Secretary. The Secretary may appoint FACOSH members
to successive terms. FACOSH meets between two and six times annually
for one-day meetings.
    Interested parties may nominate one or more qualified persons for
membership. Others are invited and encouraged to submit endorsements in
support of particular nominees. Nominations must include the nominee's
name, occupation, current position, and contact information. The
nomination also must identify the category of membership for which the
nominee is qualified and a resume of the nominee's background,
experience and qualifications for membership. In addition, the
nomination must include a statement that the nominee is aware of the
nomination, willing to serve a three-year term, and attend meetings
regularly.
    The information received through the nomination process, along with
other relevant sources of information, will assist the Secretary in
making appointments to FACOSH. In selecting FACOSH members, the
Secretary will consider individuals nominated in response to this
Federal Register notice, as well as other qualified individuals. OSHA
will publish the new FACOSH membership list in the Federal Register.

Public Participation--Submission of Nominations and Access to Docket

    You may submit nominations (1) electronically at http://www.regulations.gov
; (2) by facsimile (FAX); or (3) by hard copy. All

comments, attachments and other materials must identify the Agency name
and the OSHA docket number for this Federal Register notice (Docket No.
OSHA 2007-0011). You may supplement electronic nominations by uploading
document files electronically. If, instead, you wish to submit hard
copies of any additional material in reference to an electronic
submission, you must submit three copies to the OSHA Docket Office
following the instructions in the ADDRESSES section. The additional
material must clearly identify your electronic submission by name,
date, and docket number so OSHA can attach them to your nomination.
    Because of security-related procedures, the use of regular mail may
result in a significant delay in the receipt of nominations. For
information about security procedures concerning the delivery of
materials by hand, express delivery, messenger or courier service,
please contact the OSHA Docket Office (see ADDRESSES section).
    Submissions in response to this Federal Register notice are posted

without change at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions

interested parties about submitting personal information such as social
security numbers and birth dates. Although all submissions are listed
in the http://www.regulations.gov index, some documents (e.g.,

copyrighted material) are not publicly available to read or download
through http://www.regulations.gov. All submissions, including

copyrighted material, are available for inspection and copying at the
OSHA Docket Office.
    Information on using the http://www.regulations.gov website to make

submissions and to access the docket and exhibits is available at the
Web site's User Tips link. Contact the OSHA Docket Office for
information about materials not available through http://www.regulations.gov
 and for assistance in using the Internet to locate

submissions and other documents in the docket.
    Electronic copies of this Federal Register notice are available at
http://www.regulations.gov This notice, as well as news releases and other relevant information, is available at OSHA's webpage at http://.

http://www.osha.gov.

Authority and Signature

    Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational
Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice under the
authority granted by section 19 of the Occupational Safety and Health
Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 668), 5 U.S.C. 7902, section 1(c) of Executive
Order 13446, 29 CFR part 1960 (Basic Program Elements of Federal
Employee Occupational Safety and Health Programs), and Secretary of
Labor's Order 5-2007 (72 FR 31160).

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 5th day of December 2007.
Edwin G. Foulke, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
 [FR Doc. E7-23882 Filed 12-7-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 249 (Wednesday, December 29, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 81874-81878]
[FR Doc No: 2010-32762]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0107; FRL-9244-7]

Action To Ensure Authority To Issue Permits Under the Prevention
of Significant Deterioration Program to Sources of Greenhouse Gas
Emissions: Finding of Failure To Submit State Implementation Plan
Revisions Required for Greenhouse Gases

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is making a finding that seven states have failed to
submit revisions to their EPA-approved state implementation plans
(SIPs) to satisfy requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) to apply
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) requirements to
greenhouse gas (GHG)-emitting sources. By notice dated December 13,
2010, EPA issued a ``SIP call'' for these seven, and six other, states,
requiring each state to revise its SIP as necessary to correct the
SIP's failure to apply PSD to such sources and establishing a SIP
submittal deadline for each state. EPA established December 22, 2010,
as the deadline for these seven states. By this action, EPA is making a
finding that the seven states failed to submit the required SIP
revisions by that date. This finding requires EPA to promulgate a
Federal implementation plan (FIP) for these seven states applying PSD
to GHG-emitting sources, and EPA is taking a separate action to
promulgate the FIP immediately. The seven states are Arizona, Arkansas,
Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Oregon, and Wyoming.

DATES: This action is effective on December 29, 2010.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0107. All documents in the docket are
listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only
in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The
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>, and the telephone number for the Air
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Lisa Sutton, Air Quality Policy
Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (C504-03),
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For information related to a specific state, local, or tribal
permitting authority, please contact the appropriate EPA regional
office:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Contact for regional
                                 office (person,
     EPA regional office        mailing address,    Permitting authority
                                telephone number)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I...........................  Dave Conroy, Chief,   Connecticut,
                               Air Programs          Massachusetts,
                               Branch, EPA Region    Maine, New
                               1, 5 Post Office      Hampshire, Rhode
                               Square, Suite 100,    Island, and
                               Boston, MA 02109-     Vermont.
                               3912, (617) 918-
                               1661.
II..........................  Raymond Werner,       New Jersey, New
                               Chief, Air Programs   York, Puerto Rico,
                               Branch, EPA Region    and Virgin Islands.
                               2, 290 Broadway,
                               25th Floor, New
                               York, NY 10007-
                               1866, (212) 637-
                               3706.
III.........................  Kathleen Cox, Chief,  District of
                               Permits and           Columbia, Delaware,
                               Technical             Maryland,
                               Assessment Branch,    Pennsylvania,
                               EPA Region 3, 1650    Virginia, and West
                               Arch Street,          Virginia.
                               Philadelphia, PA
                               19103-2029, (215)
                               814-2173.
IV..........................  Lynorae Benjamin,     Alabama, Florida,
                               Chief, Regulatory     Georgia, Kentucky,
                               Development           Mississippi, North
                               Section, Air,         Carolina, South
                               Pesticides and        Carolina, and
                               Toxics Management     Tennessee.
                               Division, EPA
                               Region 4, Atlanta
                               Federal Center, 61
                               Forsyth Street,
                               SW., Atlanta, GA
                               30303-3104, (404)
                               562-9033.
V...........................  J. Elmer Bortzer,     Illinois, Indiana,
                               Chief, Air Programs   Michigan,
                               Branch (AR-18J),      Minnesota, Ohio,
                               EPA Region 5, 77      and Wisconsin.
                               West Jackson
                               Boulevard, Chicago,
                               IL 60604-3507,
<PHONE_NUMBER>.
VI..........................  Jeff Robinson,        Arkansas, Louisiana,
                               Chief, Air Permits    New Mexico,
                               Section, EPA Region   Oklahoma, and
                               6, Fountain Place     Texas.
                               12th Floor, Suite
                               1200, 1445 Ross
                               Avenue, Dallas, TX
                               75202-2733, (214)
                               665-6435.
VII.........................  Mark Smith, Chief,    Iowa, Kansas,
                               Air Permitting and    Missouri, and
                               Compliance Branch,    Nebraska.
                               EPA Region 7, 901
                               North 5th Street,
                               Kansas City, KS
                               66101, (913) 551-
                               7876.
VIII........................  Carl Daly, Unit       Colorado, Montana,
                               Leader, Air           North Dakota, South
                               Permitting,           Dakota, Utah, and
                               Monitoring &          Wyoming.
                               Modeling Unit, EPA
                               Region 8, 1595
                               Wynkoop Street,
                               Denver, CO 80202-
                               1129, (303) 312-
                               6416.
IX..........................  Gerardo Rios, Chief,  Arizona; California;
                               Permits Office, EPA   Hawaii and the
                               Region 9, 75          Pacific Islands;
                               Hawthorne Street,     Indian Country
                               San Francisco, CA     within Region 9 and
                               94105, (415) 972-     Navajo Nation; and
                               3974.                 Nevada.
X...........................  Nancy Helm, Manager,  Alaska, Idaho,
                               Federal and           Oregon, and
                               Delegated Air         Washington.
                               Programs Unit, EPA
                               Region 10, 1200
                               Sixth Avenue, Suite
                               900, Seattle, WA
                               98101, (206) 553-
                               6908.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Entities affected by this rule include state and local permitting
authorities.\1\ By this action, EPA is making a finding of failure to
submit the required SIPs for seven states (comprising eight state and
local programs) because their EPA-approved SIP PSD programs do not
apply to GHG-emitting sources. The seven states are Arizona, Arkansas,
Florida, Idaho, Kansas, Oregon, and Wyoming. In Arizona, the finding of
failure applies to two EPA-approved PSD permit programs--``Pinal
County'' and ``Rest of State (Excludes Maricopa County, Pima County,
and Indian Country).''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For convenience, we refer to ``states'' in this rulemaking
to collectively mean states and local permitting authorities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. How is the preamble organized?

    The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. How is the preamble organized?
II. Background
    A. CAA and Regulatory Context
    1. SIP PSD Requirements
    2. SIP Inadequacy and Corrective Action
    B. Recent EPA Regulatory Action Concerning PSD Requirements for
GHG-Emitting Sources
III. Final Action: Finding of Failure of Certain States To Submit
Corrective SIP Revisions
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Notice and Comment Under the Administrative Procedure Act
(APA)
    B. Executive Order 12866--Regulatory Planning and Review
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act
    D. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform
    F. Executive Order 13132--Federalism
    G. Executive Order 13175--Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    H. Executive Order 13045--Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    I. Executive Order 13211--Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    K. Executive Order 12898--Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
    L. Congressional Review Act
V. Judicial Review
VI. Statutory Authority

II. Background

A. CAA and Regulatory Context

    EPA described the relevant background information in the proposed
and final rulemaking for what we call the GHG PSD SIP call or, simply,
the SIP call,\2\ as well as in what we call the Tailoring Rule.\3\ 75
FR at 31518-21. Knowledge of this background information is presumed
and will be only briefly summarized here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``Action to Ensure Authority to Issue Permits under the
Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program to Sources of
Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Finding of Substantial Inadequacy and SIP
Call--Final Rule,'' 75 FR at 77698, 77700-04 (December 13, 2010)
(final SIP call); ``Action to Ensure Authority to Issue Permits
under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program to Sources
of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Finding of Substantial Inadequacy and
SIP Call--Proposed Rule,'' 75 FR 53892, 53896-98 (September 2, 2010)
(proposed SIP call).
    \3\ Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V
Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule; Final Rule. 75 FR 31514, 31518-21
(June 3, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. SIP PSD Requirements
    In general, under the CAA PSD program, a stationary source must
obtain a permit prior to undertaking construction or modification
projects that would result in specified amounts of new or increased
emissions of air pollutants that are subject to regulation under other
provisions of the CAA. CAA sections 165(a)(1), 169(1). As we described
in the SIP call and elsewhere, several CAA provisions, taken together,
mandate that SIPs include PSD programs that are applicable to any air
pollutant that is subject to regulation under the CAA, including, as
discussed later in this preamble, GHGs on and after January 2, 2011.
CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(J), 161.
2. SIP Inadequacy and Corrective Action
    The CAA provides a mechanism for the correction of SIPs with
certain types of inadequacies. CAA section 110(k)(5) authorizes the
Administrator to ``find[ ] that [a SIP] * * * is substantially
inadequate to * * * comply with any requirement of this Act,'' and,
based on that finding, to ``require the State to revise the [SIP] * * *
to correct such inadequacies.'' This latter action is commonly referred
to as a ``SIP call.'' In addition, this provision provides that EPA
must notify the state of the substantial inadequacy and authorizes EPA
to establish a ``reasonable deadline[ ] (not to exceed 18 months after
the date of such notice)'' for the submission of the corrective SIP
revision.
    If EPA does not receive the corrective SIP revision by the
deadline, CAA section 110(c)(1)(A) authorizes EPA to ``find[ ] that
[the] State has failed to make a required submission.'' Once EPA makes
that finding, CAA section 110(c)(1) requires EPA to ``promulgate a
Federal implementation plan at any time within 2 years after the
[finding] * * * unless the State corrects the deficiency, and [EPA]
approves the plan or plan revision, before [EPA] promulgates such
[FIP].''

B. Recent EPA Regulatory Action Concerning PSD Requirements for GHG-
Emitting Sources

    In recent months, EPA has taken several distinct actions related to
GHGs under the CAA. Some of these, in conjunction with the operation of
the CAA, trigger PSD applicability for GHG-emitting sources on and
after January 2, 2011, but focus the scope of PSD on the largest GHG-
emitting sources. These actions include what we call the Endangerment
Finding,\4\ the Light-Duty Vehicle Rule,\5\ the Johnson Memo
Reconsideration,\6\ and the Tailoring Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ``Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for
Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.'' 74 FR
66496 (December 15, 2009).
    \5\ ``Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and
Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards; Final Rule.'' 75 FR 25324
(May 7, 2010).
    \6\ ``Interpretation of Regulations that Determine Pollutants
Covered by Clean Air Act Permitting Programs.'' 75 FR 17004 (April
2, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Closely related to this action, EPA promulgated the PSD GHG SIP
call, under authority of CAA section 110(k)(5). In that action,
applicable to 13 states, the Administrator issued a finding of
substantial inadequacy as well as a SIP call and established a deadline
for submission of the corrective SIP revision. The deadline was 12
months after the date of the SIP call, unless the state indicated to
EPA that it did not object to an earlier deadline, as early as 3 weeks
after the date of the SIP call. Twelve of the states so indicated and
therefore received an earlier deadline. 75 FR at 77705.
    All 13 states and their deadlines are listed in table II-1, ``SIP
Call States and SIP Submittal Deadlines'':

         Table II-1--SIP Call States and SIP Submittal Deadlines
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          SIP submittal
                    State (or area)                         deadline
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona: Pinal County.................................          12/22/10
Arizona: Rest of State (Excludes Maricopa County, Pima          12/22/10
 County, and Indian Country)..........................
Arkansas..............................................          12/22/10
California: Sacramento Metropolitan AQMD..............          01/31/11
Connecticut...........................................          03/01/11
Florida...............................................          12/22/10
Idaho.................................................          12/22/10
Kansas................................................          12/22/10
Kentucky (Jefferson County): Louisville Metro Air               01/01/11
 Pollution Control District...........................
Kentucky: Rest of State (Excludes Louisville Metro Air          03/31/11
 Pollution Control District (Jefferson County)).......
Nebraska..............................................          03/01/11
Nevada: Clark County..................................          07/01/11
Oregon................................................          12/22/10
Texas.................................................          12/01/11
Wyoming...............................................          12/22/10
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SIP submittal deadlines that the final SIP call rule
established for the states reflect, in almost all instances, a
recognition by EPA and the states of the need to move expeditiously to
assure the availability of a permitting authority. In the SIP call, EPA
made clear that the purpose of establishing the shorter period as the
deadline--for any state that advised us that it did not object to that
shorter period--is to accommodate states that wish to ensure that a FIP
is in effect as a backstop to avoid any gap in PSD permitting. 75 FR at
77710.
    Seven of the 13 SIP-called states (including 8 of the 15 affected
PSD programs) stated that they did not object to a SIP submittal
deadline of December 22, 2010 (the earliest possible deadline), 75 FR
at 77705,\7\ and those states are the subject of this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ More detailed discussion about these seven states is
included in the Supplemental Information Document prepared by EPA in
support of the final SIP call. The Supplemental Information Document
can be found in the docket for this rulemaking, at Document ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0107-0129.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Also closely related to this action, EPA proposed a FIP \8\ action
related to GHGs. We stated in the proposed FIP that if any of the
states for which we issued the SIP call did not meet its SIP submittal
deadline, we would immediately issue a finding of failure to submit a
required SIP revision, under CAA section 110(c)(1)(A), and immediately
thereafter promulgate a FIP for the state. We explained that we would
take these actions immediately in order to minimize any period of time
during which larger-emitting sources may be under an obligation to
obtain PSD permits for their GHGs when they construct or modify, but no
permitting authority is authorized to issue those permits. 75 FR at
53889.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Proposed rule, ``Action To Ensure Authority To Issue Permits
Under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program to Sources
of Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Federal Implementation Plan.'' 75 FR
53883 (September 2, 2010). The notice can be found in the docket for
this rulemaking, at Document ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0107-0045.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Final Action: Finding of Failure of Certain States To Submit
Corrective SIP Revisions

    By this final rule, EPA is making a finding under CAA section
110(c) that seven states failed to submit a corrective SIP by December
22, 2010, which was their SIP submittal deadline, as established under
our SIP call. These seven states are Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho,
Kansas, Oregon, and Wyoming. In Arizona, the finding of failure applies
to two EPA-approved PSD permit programs--``Pinal County'' and ``Rest of
State (Excludes Maricopa County, Pima County, and Indian Country).''
These seven states were included in the SIP call because their EPA-
approved SIP PSD programs do not apply to GHG-emitting sources.
    As we stated in our proposed FIP rulemaking (see 75 FR at 53889),
if a state for which we issue the SIP call does not meet its SIP
submittal deadline, we would immediately issue a finding of failure to
submit a required SIP revision under CAA section 110(c)(1)(A). Once we
make that finding, we are required under CAA section 110(c) to
promulgate a FIP (unless first the state corrects the deficiency and
EPA approves the plan or plan revision). By a separate action today, we
are promulgating the FIP immediately.
    The making of a finding of failure in this final rule is important
because it is the prerequisite for the FIP, and the FIP, in turn,
establishes EPA as the permitting authority for GHG-emitting sources.
Without our acting as that authority, large GHG-emitting sources in the
affected states may be unable to obtain a PSD permit for their GHG
emissions and therefore may face delays in undertaking construction or
modification projects. Sources that emit or plan to emit large amounts
of GHGs will, starting January 2, 2011, be required to obtain PSD
permits before undertaking new construction or modification projects,
but neither the states nor, absent the FIP, EPA would be authorized to
issue the permits. With the FIP, EPA will have the authority to issue
PSD permits by January 2, 2011.
    This rule is effective immediately upon publication in the Federal
Register. Section 553(d) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5
U.S.C. 553(d), generally provides that rules may not take effect
earlier than 30 days after they are published in the Federal Register.
However, APA section 553(d)(3) provides an exception when the agency
finds good cause exists for a rule to take effect in less than 30 days.
    We find good cause exists here to make this rule effective upon
publication because implementing a 30-day delayed effective date would
interfere with the Agency's ability to ensure that, as of January 2,
2011, there is a permitting authority authorized to issue certain major
stationary sources in the affected states the required PSD permits for
GHG emissions. A 30-day delay in the effective date of this rule will
impede implementation of this rule and create regulatory confusion.
This rule, establishing that certain states failed to submit corrective
SIP revisions by their December 22, 2010, deadline, is necessary so
that EPA can promulgate a FIP for those same states on December 23,
2010. This timing will allow the FIP to be published and become
effective by the January 2, 2011, date that PSD will first apply to
GHG-emitting sources under the CAA. If EPA could not meet

those dates, for whatever reason, then, as of January 2, 2011, certain
major stationary sources in the affected states would be required to
obtain PSD permits for GHG emissions that no permitting authority would
be authorized to issue. Thus, it would be impractical to wait 30 days
for this rule to take effect. Moreover, EPA finds that it is necessary
to make this rule effective upon publication to avoid any economic harm
that the public and the regulated industry might incur if there is no
permitting authority able to issue PSD permits for GHG emissions on
January 2, 2011.
    The purpose of the APA's 30-day effective date provision is to give
affected parties time to adjust their behavior before the final rule
takes effect. Each of the states to which this rule applies indicated
in comment letters to EPA that they do not object to those deadlines.
Both the states and the public have been aware that we would take this
approach to this rule for some time, that is, that we would establish a
SIP submittal deadline as early as December 22, 2010, so that we could
make a finding of failure to submit and promulgate a FIP as early as
December 23, 2010, in order that the FIP could take effect by the
January 2, 2011, date that PSD begins to apply to GHG-emitting sources.
We described this approach in the proposed SIP call that was signed and
made available to the public on August 12, 2010, even before its
September 2, 2010, publication date in the Federal Register. Moreover,
the public was afforded the opportunity to comment on this approach in
the SIP call proposal. See 75 FR 53892, 53896.
    In addition, this rule is not a major rule under the Congressional
Review Act (CRA). Thus, the 60-day delay in effective date required for
major rules under the CRA does not apply.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Notice and Comment Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)

    This is a final EPA action but is not subject to notice-and-comment
requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C.
553(b). EPA believes that because of the limited time provided to make
findings of failure to submit regarding SIP submissions, Congress did
not intend such findings to be subject to notice-and-comment
rulemaking.
    However, to the extent such findings are subject to notice-and-
comment rulemaking, EPA invokes the good cause exception pursuant to
the APA, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), which excuses the notice-and-comment
obligation ``when the agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the
finding and a brief statement of reasons therefor in the rules issued)
that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable,
unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.'' While the good cause
exception is to be narrowly construed, Utility Solid Waste Activities
Group v. Environmental Protection Agency, 236 F.3d 749, 754 (DC Cir.
2001), it is also ``an important safety valve to be used where delay
would do real harm.'' U.S. Steel Corp. v. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 595 F.2d 207, 214 (5th Cir. 1979). Notice and comment is
impracticable where ``an agency finds that due and timely execution of
its functions would be impeded by the notice otherwise required.''
Utility Solid Waste Activities Group, 236 F.3d at 754. Notice and
comment is contrary to the public interest where ``the interest of the
public would be defeated by any requirement of advance notice.'' Id. at
755.
    Here, notice and comment are unnecessary because no EPA judgment is
involved in making a nonsubstantive finding of failure to submit
elements of SIP submissions required by the CAA. Furthermore, providing
notice and comment would be impracticable because of the limited time
provided under the statute for making such determinations. Finally,
notice and comment would be contrary to the public interest because it
would divert agency resources from the critical substantive review of
complete SIPs. See 58 FR 51270, 51272, n.17 (October 1, 1993); 59 FR
39832, 39853 (August 4, 1994). In addition, in this case, notice and
comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest for
the same reasons, discussed earlier in this preamble, why a 30-day
effective date would be impracticable and contrary to the public
interest.

B. Executive Order 12866--Regulatory Planning and Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993).
This action issues a finding that certain states failed to submit
corrective SIPs by the deadline established in EPA's recently
promulgated SIP call for the same states. This type of action is exempt
from review under EO 12866.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden.
However, OMB has previously approved the information collection
requirements contained in the existing regulations for PSD (see, e.g.,
40 CFR 52.21) and title V (see 40 CFR parts 70 and 71) under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and
has assigned OMB control number 2060-0003 and OMB control number 2060-
0336, respectively. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in 40
CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act (APA) or any other statute. This rule is not subject to
the notice-and-comment requirement of the APA, because the Agency has
invoked the ``good cause'' exemption under 5 U.S.C. 553(b). Thus, this
rule is not subject to the RFA.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action contains no federal mandates under the provisions of
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C.
1531-1538 for state, local, or tribal governments or the private
sector. This action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or
tribal governments or the private sector. Therefore, this action is not
subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of the UMRA.
    This action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203
of the UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action does
not impose any new obligations or enforceable duties on any small
governments.

F. Executive Order 13132--Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will 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. This action merely prescribes EPA's
action for states that do not meet their existing obligation for PSD
SIP submittal. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this
action.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and state and local
governments, EPA specifically solicited comment on this action, as part
of the FIP proposal, from state and local officials.

G. Executive Order 13175--Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). In this action,
EPA is not addressing any tribal implementation plans. This action is
limited to states that do not meet their existing obligation for PSD
SIP submittal. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this
action.
    Although Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this final rule,
EPA specifically solicited additional comment on the proposal for this
action from tribal officials and we received one comment from a tribal
agency. Additionally, EPA participated in a conference call on July 29,
2010, with the National Tribal Air Association (NTAA).

H. Executive Order 13045--Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    EPA interprets E.O. 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying
only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks,
such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the E.O. has the
potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to
E.O. 13045 because it merely prescribes EPA's action for states that do
not meet their existing obligation for PSD SIP submittal.

I. Executive Order 13211--Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is not a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. This action
merely prescribes EPA's action for states that do not meet their
existing obligation for PSD SIP submittal.

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore,
EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

K. Executive Order 12898--Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the U.S.
    EPA has determined that this final rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment. This rule merely prescribes EPA's action for states that
do not meet their existing obligation for PSD SIP submittal.

L. Congressional Review Act

    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. Section 804 exempts from section 801 the following types
of rules: (1) Rules of particular applicability; (2) rules relating to
agency management or personnel; and (3) rules of agency organization,
procedure, or practice that do not substantially affect the rights or
obligations of non-agency parties. 5 U.S. 804(3). EPA is not required
to submit a rule report regarding this action under section 801 because
this is a rule of agency organization, procedure, or practice that does
not substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency
parties.

V. Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, judicial review of this final
action is available by filing of a petition for review in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by February 28,
2011. Any such judicial review is limited to only those objections that
are raised with reasonable specificity in timely comments. Under
section 307(b)(2) of the Act, the requirements of this final action may
not be challenged later in civil or criminal proceedings brought by us
to enforce these requirements.

VI. Statutory Authority

    The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections
101, 111, 114, 116, and 301 of the CAA as amended (42 U.S.C. 7401,
7411, 7414, 7416, and 7601).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Air pollution control, Carbon dioxide, Carbon dioxide equivalents,
Carbon monoxide, Environmental protection, Greenhouse gases,
Hydrofluorocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental
relations, Lead, Methane, Nitrogen dioxide, Nitrous oxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Perfluorocarbons, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur hexafluoride, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic
compounds.

    Dated: December 23, 2010.
Gina McCarthy,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 2010-32762 Filed 12-28-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P