[Federal Register: June 19, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 117)]
[Notices]
[Page 33794-33795]
[DOCID:fr19jn07-94]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-55899; File No. SR-ISE-2007-30]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change Relating to Registration of Representatives and Options
Principals and Related Fee Changes

June 12, 2007.
    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 May 25, 2007, the International Securities Exchange, LLC (``ISE'' or
``Exchange'') 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 ISE. The
Exchange filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule
change pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule
19b-4(f)(6) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal effective upon
receipt of this filing by 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 ISE is proposing to amend its rules governing Registration of
Options Principals, Registration of Representatives, and Termination of
Registered Persons to conform them to similar rules of other exchanges
and to amend related fees to be consistent with those of other
exchanges. The text of the rule proposal is available on the Exchange's
Web site (http://www.iseoptions.com), at the Exchange, and at the

Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, ISE 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. ISE 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 ISE rules currently contain a requirement that members who do
business with the public qualify and register their options principals
and representatives. This requirement is the same as the NASD
qualification and registration requirements \5\ and is uniform across
exchanges. ISE Rules 601 (Registration of Options Principals), 602
(Registration of Representatives), and 603 (Termination of Registered
Persons) have remained unchanged since they were adopted in 2000 at the
time the ISE was initially approved as a registered national securities
exchange. At that time, the language of these rules was the same as
that contained in the rules of the Chicago Board Options Exchange
(``CBOE'') and the rules of other options exchanges. However, the CBOE
and other options exchanges have since amended their rules to specify
that registration and termination of registered persons must be
accomplished by use of the Form U4 electronically filed with the NASD's
``Web CRD'' system.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See NASD Rules 1021 and 1031 (Registration Requirements).
    \6\ See, e.g., CBOE Rule 9.2 (Registration of Options
Principals) and CBOE Rule 9.3 (Registration and Termination of
Representatives).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, the ISE seeks to update its rule language in Rules
601, 602, and 603 to make it consistent with the other exchanges and to
make it clear that ISE members have the same obligation to indicate ISE
registrations and terminations on Form U4 as they do for other
exchanges. The amended rules addressing registered representatives will
apply to both our options members and our Equity EAMs \7\ that do
business with the public. In this respect, the Exchange proposes to
amend Appendix A to Chapter 21 (``ISE Stock Exchange, LLC Trading
Rules'') to include ISE Rules 602 and 603.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Defined in Rule 2100(c)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to increase the initial registration,
annual and transfer fees related to registered options principals and
registered representatives, and to adopt a termination fee. All of the
proposed fees are equal to those charged by other options exchanges.\8\
The Exchange is amending the following fees for registered
representatives: (1) Increasing the initial registration and transfer
fees from $25 to $55; (2) increasing the annual fee from $30 to $55;
and (3) adding the termination fee of $30. These fees are automatically
collected by the NASD and remitted to the ISE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The proposed registration, annual, transfer and termination
fees are the same as those charged by the CBOE and Philadelphia
Stock Exchange. See the Schedule of Fees, available at: http://www.cboe.com and http://www.phlx.com, respectively.

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

    Finally, the Exchange proposes to make non-substantive changes to
reformat the way it has incorporated certain rules by reference in
Chapter 21. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 2100 to
remove reference to certain specific rules contained in other chapters
of the ISE Rules that are applicable to ISE Equity EAMs and add
reference to such rules to Appendix A to Chapter 21 and to make clean-
up changes to Rule 2100. Currently, some rules applicable to ISE Equity
EAMs are listed in Rule 2100, while others are listed in Appendix A.
The Exchange believes it will be easier for Equity EAMs to identify
which ISE rules apply to them if the applicable rules are consolidated
in Appendix A to Chapter 21.
2. Statutory Basis
    The basis under the Act for this proposed rule change is found in
Section 6(b).\9\ Specifically, the Exchange believes the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b)(4) \10\ of
the Act that an exchange have an equitable allocation of reasonable
dues, fees and other charges among its members and other persons using
its facilities, and of Section 6(b)(5) \11\ of the Act that the rules
of an exchange be designed to promote just and equitable principles of
trade, serve to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest. In particular, the Exchange
believes this proposed rule change will remove any confusion in the
marketplace regarding the requirement to register options principals
and representatives on Form U4 by adopting language that is uniform
among the exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed rule change does not 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 not solicited or received any comments on this
proposed rule change.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, if consistent with
the protection of investors and the public interest, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \12\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires that a self-regulatory organization submit to the
Commission 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 Commission notes that ISE has satisfied the five-day
pre-filing notice requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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 Number SR-ISE-2007-30 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-ISE-2007-30. 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. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of ISE.
    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-ISE-2007-30
and should be submitted on or before July 10, 2007.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-11718 Filed 6-18-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 165 (Friday, August 26, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52548-52549]
[FR Doc No: 2022-18419]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP16-121-000]

National Grid LNG LLC; Notice of Request for Extension of Time

    Take notice that on August 16, 2022, National Grid LNG LLC
(National Grid) requested that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission) grant an extension of time (2022 Extension of Time
Request), until June 1, 2023, to complete construction of, and place
into service, its Fields Point Liquefaction Project located in
Providence, RI as authorized in the October 17, 2018 Order Issuing
Certificate (Certificate Order).\1\ Ordering Paragraph B(1) of the
Certificate Order required National Grid to complete the construction
of the proposed Fields Point Liquefaction Project facilities \2\ and
make them available for service within three years from issuance, or by
October 17, 2021.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ National Grid LNG LLC, 165 FERC ] 61,031 (2018) (Certificate
Order).
    \2\ The Fields Point Liquefaction Project consists of the
construction of one (1) new 20 million cubic feet per day (MMcf/d)
gas pretreatment and liquefaction system to convert natural gas
delivered by pipeline into liquefied natural gas (LNG). The
liquefaction facility is designed to enable National Gas to provide
up to 20,600 dekatherms per day (Dth/day) liquefaction service at
its existing LNG storage facility located in Providence, RI.
    \3\ Id. at ordering para. (B)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 8, 2020 National Grid filed a request for an extension
of time for an additional twelve months to complete construction and
place into service the authorized construction at the LNG storage
facility at Fields Point. National Grid was granted a one-year
extension of time, until and including October 17, 2022, to complete
abandonment activities authorized in the above referenced docket.
    National Grid states that the Project was on-schedule to be placed
in service before October 17, 2022, however, National Grid had to
suspend the testing and commissioning process on May 23, 2022, due to
objections from the PPL Corporation-owned LDC regarding odorant levels
in the tail gas flowing into the LDC system on that date. National Grid
states that despite diligent efforts to design, engineer and procure
all of the components for the mercaptan removal system, supply chain
delays have occurred. National Grid states that potential supply
shortfall could lead to further delays in completing the testing to
begin service until the following Spring. For that reason and
dependence upon meteorological conditions during the Fall months,
National Grid requests an extension to June 1, 2023 for the date to
place the facilities in service.
    This notice establishes a 15-calendar day intervention and comment
period deadline. Any person wishing to comment on National Grid's
request for an extension of time may do so. No reply comments or
answers will be considered. If you wish to obtain legal status by
becoming a party to the proceedings for this request, you should, on or
before the comment date stated below, file a motion to intervene in
accordance with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the
Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.10).
    As a matter of practice, the Commission itself generally acts on
requests for extensions of time to complete construction for Natural
Gas Act facilities when such requests are contested before order
issuance. For those extension requests that are contested,\4\ the
Commission will aim to issue an order acting on the request within 45
days.\5\ The Commission will address all arguments relating to whether
the applicant has demonstrated there is good cause to grant the
extension.\6\ The Commission will not consider arguments that re-
litigate the issuance of the certificate order, including whether the
Commission properly found the project to be in the public convenience
and necessity and whether the Commission's environmental analysis for
the certificate complied with the National Environmental Policy Act.\7\
At the time a pipeline requests an extension of time, orders on
certificates of public convenience and necessity are final and the
Commission will not re-litigate their issuance.\8\ The OEP Director, or
his or her designee, will act on all of those extension requests that
are uncontested.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Contested proceedings are those where an intervenor disputes
any material issue of the filing. 18 CFR 385.2201(c)(1) (2019).
    \5\ Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC, 170 FERC ] 61,144, at P 40
(2020).
    \6\ Id. at P 40.
    \7\ Similarly, the Commission will not re-litigate the issuance
of an NGA section 3 authorization, including whether a proposed
project is not inconsistent with the public interest and whether the
Commission's environmental analysis for the permit order complied
with NEPA.
    \8\ Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC, 170 FERC ] 61,144, at P 40
(2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, The Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://

www.ferc.gov) using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number
excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access
the document. At this time, the Commission has suspended access to
Commission's Public Reference Room, due to the proclamation declaring a
National Emergency concerning the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19),
issued by the President on March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact FERC
at [email protected] or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,
(202) 502-8659.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments,
protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link
at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should
submit an original and three copies of the protest or intervention to
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE,
Washington, DC 20426.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on September 6, 2022.

    Dated: August 22, 2022.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-18419 Filed 8-25-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 240 (Friday, December 14, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 64241-64242]
[FR Doc No: 2018-26799]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2017-1146; Airspace Docket No. 17-AWP-16]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of Class D and Class E Airspace, and Removal of Class E
Airspace; Lompoc, CA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action modifies Class D airspace, Class E airspace
extending upward from 700 feet above the surface, and removes Class E
airspace designated as an extension at Vandenberg Air Force Base (AFB),
Lompoc, CA. This action also modifies Class E airspace extending upward
from 700 feet above the surface at Lompoc Airport, Lompoc, CA, by
enlarging the airspace and removing the part-time Notice to Airmen
(NOTAM) status. This action amends the geographic coordinates of the
airport to match the FAA's aeronautical database. These actions are
necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules
(IFR) operations at these airports. An editorial change removes the
city associated with the airport name in the airspace designations and
exclusionary language from the description. Additionally, this action
replaces the outdated term ``Airport/Facility Directory'' with the term
``Chart Supplement''.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, April 25, 2019. The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1
Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of
FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to
https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bonnie Malgarini, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 2200
S. 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it modifies Class D, Class E airspace, and removes Class E airspace
designated as an extension at Lompoc, CA, to support of IFR operations
at Vandenberg AFB and Lompoc Airport.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) in the
Federal Register (83 FR 7435; February 21, 2018) for Docket No. FAA-
2017-1146 to modify Class D airspace, Class E airspace extending upward
from 700 feet above the surface, and remove Class E airspace designated
as an extension at Vandenberg Air Force Base (AFB), Lompoc, CA.
Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No
comments were received.
    Class D airspace designations are published in paragraph 5000, and
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraphs 6004 and 6005
of FAA Order 7400.11C, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September
15, 2018, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15,
2018. FAA Order 7400.11C is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11C lists Class A,
B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 enlarges Class D airspace, reduces Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface, and removes Class E airspace
designated as an extension at Vandenberg Air Force Base (AFB), Lompoc,
CA, and also amends Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface and remove

part-time NOTAM status at Lompoc Airport, Lompoc, CA.
    Class D airspace is enlarged to within a 5-mile radius (from a 4.3-
mile radius) of Vandenberg AFB. Additionally, an editorial change
removes the city associated with the airport name in the airspace
designation to comply with a recent change to FAA Order 7400.2L, dated
October 12, 2017. An editorial change was also made to the Class D
airspace legal description replacing ``Airport/Facility Directory''
with ``Chart Supplement''.
    Class E airspace designated as an extension is removed, as this
airspace is not required to protect IFR arrival and departure aircraft
at Vandenberg AFB.
    Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
at Vandenberg AFB has been modified to a 7.3-mile radius of the airport
with extensions to 11 miles north, 12.5-miles southeast, and 11 miles
south of the airport (from a 7.8-mile radius of the airport and within
1.8 miles each side of the Vandenberg AFB ILS localizer southeast
course, extending from 7.8 miles to 10.3 miles southeast of the
airport). The exclusionary language contained in the legal description
has been removed to comply with FAA Order 7400.2L, Procedures for
Handling Airspace Matters.
    This action also amends Class E airspace extending upward from 700
feet above the surface at Lompoc Airport, Lompoc, CA, by enlarging the
airspace to within a 6.4-mile radius of the airport, and within 4 miles
each side of the 090[deg] bearing from the airport extending from the
6.4-mile radius to 12.8 miles east of the airport, and within 4 miles
each side of the 113[deg] bearing from the airport extending from the
6.4-mile radius to 20.4 miles southeast of the airport (from a 4.3-mile
radius of the airport and within 4.3 miles each side of the Gaviota
VORTAC 293[deg] radial extending from the 4.3-mile radius to 10.9 miles
west of the Gaviota VORTAC and within 4 miles each side of the 083[deg]
bearing from the Lompoc NDB to 8 miles east of the NDB). Also, the
part-time NOTAM status has been removed, since this airspace is
effective continuously.
    Finally, this action updates the geographic coordinates of these
airports to match the FAA's aeronautical database.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11C,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 13, 2018, and
effective September 15, 2018, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace.

* * * * *

AWP CA D Lompoc, CA [Amended]

Vandenberg AFB, CA
    (Lat. 34[deg]44'14'' N, long. 120[deg]35'04'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
2,900 feet MSL within a 5-mile radius of Vandenberg AFB. This Class
D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times
established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and
time will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart
Supplement.

Paragraph 6004 Class E Airspace Designated as an Extension to a
Class D or Class E Surface Area.

* * * * *

AWP CA E4 Lompoc, CA [Removed]

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward from 700
feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

AWP CA E5 Lompoc, CA [Amended]

Vandenberg AFB, CA
    (Lat. 34[deg]44'14'' N, long. 120[deg]35'04'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 7.3-mile radius of Vandenberg AFB from the airport 007[deg]
bearing clockwise to the airport 143[deg] bearing, and within a
12.5-mile radius of the airport from the airport 143[deg] bearing
clockwise to the airport 168[deg] bearing, and within an 11-mile
radius of the airport from the airport 168[deg] bearing clockwise to
the airport 190[deg] bearing, and within a 7.3-mile radius of the
airport from the airport 190[deg] bearing clockwise to the airport
343[deg] bearing, and within an 11-mile radius of the airport from
the airport 343[deg] bearing clockwise to the airport 007[deg]
bearing.

AWP CA E5 Lompoc, CA [Amended]

Lompoc Airport, CA
    (Lat. 34[deg]39'56'' N, long. 120[deg]28'03'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.4-mile radius of Lompoc Airport, and within 4 miles each
side of the 090[deg] bearing from the airport extending to 12.8
miles east of the airport, and within 4 miles each side of the
113[deg] bearing from the airport extending to 20.4 miles southeast
of the airport.

    Issued in Seattle, Washington, on November 30, 2018.
Shawn M. Kozica,
Group Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2018-26799 Filed 12-13-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 173 (Friday, September 8, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 42447-42451]
[FR Doc No: 2017-18878]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2017-0216 and EPA-R10-OAR-2017-0193; FRL-9967-22-Regions 8
and 10]

Attainment Date Extensions for the Logan, Utah-Idaho 2006 24-Hour
Fine Particulate Matter Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is granting two one-
year extensions to the Moderate attainment date for the 2006 24-hour
fine particulate matter (PM2.5) Logan, Utah (UT)-Idaho (ID)
nonattainment area. This action is based on the EPA's evaluation of air
quality monitoring data and extension requests submitted by the State
of Utah on May 2, 2017, and the State of Idaho on December 15, 2015,
February 26, 2016, and April 25, 2017. The EPA is extending the
Moderate attainment date from December 31, 2015 to December 31, 2017,
in accordance with section 188(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: This final rule is effective on October 10, 2017.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established two dockets for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2017-0216 and EPA-R10-OAR-2017-0193. All
documents in the dockets are listed on http://www.regulations.gov.
Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (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 at
http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Region 8, Office
of Partnerships and Regulatory Assistance, Air Program, 1595 Wynkoop
Street, Denver, Colorado, 80202-1129 or at the EPA Region 10, Office of
Air and Waste, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington, 98101. The EPA
requests that if at all possible, you contact the individuals listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of
the docket. You may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through
Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Crystal Ostigaard, Air Program, EPA,
Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-
1129,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Jeff Hunt, Air
Planning Unit, Office of Air and Waste (OAW-150), EPA, Region 10, 1200
Sixth Ave, Suite 900, Seattle, Washington, 98101;<PHONE_NUMBER>;
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In early June of this year, the EPA proposed to grant two one-year
extensions to the Moderate attainment date for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 Logan, UT-ID nonattainment area. See 82 FR 25992 (June
6, 2017); 82 FR 26638 (June 8, 2017). Under CAA section 188(d), the EPA
may grant a state's request to extend the attainment date for a
Moderate area if: ``(1) the state has complied with all requirements
and commitments pertaining to the area in the applicable implementation
plan; and (2) no more than one exceedance of the 24-hour [National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)] level for PM10 has
occurred in the area in the year preceding the Extension Year, and the
annual mean concentration for PM10 in the area for such year
is less than or equal to the standard level.'' The statute provides the
EPA with authority to issue only two one-year extensions for a single
Moderate area.
    On August 24, 2016, the EPA finalized the Fine Particulate Matter
National Ambient Air Quality Standards: State Implementation Plan
Requirements (``PM2.5 Implementation Rule''), 81 FR 58010,
and that rule includes requirements applicable to Moderate area
extension requests under CAA section 188(d). Under the regulations, the
EPA may grant an

extension if the agency determines that: (1) The state has complied
with all requirements and commitments pertaining to the area in the
applicable implementation plan; and (2) for an area designated
nonattainment for the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for which the
state seeks an attainment date extension, the 98th percentile 24-hour
concentration at each monitor in that area for the calendar year that
includes the applicable attainment date is less than or equal to the
level of the applicable 24-hour standard (calculated according to the
data analysis requirements in 40 CFR part 50, appendix N). See 40 CFR
51.1005(a)(1). The applicable implementation plan is defined as the
plan submitted to meet Moderate area requirements. Id. Sec.
51.1005(a)(2). The PM2.5 Implementation Rule explains that,
to meet the first criterion, a state needs to show that it has
``submitted the necessary attainment plan for the area for the
applicable PM2.5 NAAQS and is implementing the control
measures in the submission.'' See 81 FR 58070 and 58073, August 24,
2016.
    On June 6, 2017 (82 FR 25992), the EPA Region 8 Regional
Administrator, and on June 8, 2017 (82 FR 26638), the EPA Region 10
Regional Administrator proposed to grant two one-year extensions to the
Moderate area attainment date for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
Logan, UT-ID nonattainment area. The requests on which the EPA proposed
action were submitted by the State of Utah on May 2, 2017, and the
State of Idaho on December 15, 2015, February 26, 2016, and April 25,
2017. The EPA took comment on granting the two one-year extension
requests that would extend the Moderate PM2.5 attainment
date from December 31, 2015 to December 31, 2017, for the Logan, UT-ID
nonattainment area. For details of the EPA's reasons for proposing to
grant the extensions, please see the June 6, 2017 and June 8, 2017
proposal notices.

II. Response to Comments

    The EPA received two public comments on the proposed actions. One
was submitted anonymously and the second was submitted by Western
Resource Advocates (WRA).
    Comment: The first comment briefly mentions that the State of Utah
has had adequate time to address the air quality issue and the
extension should not be approved because medical issues by excessive
particulate matter are well substantiated.
    Response: The EPA agrees that there are medical issues associated
with PM2.5 exposures. However, CAA section 188(d) and
implementing regulations provide flexibility for states to address air
quality issues in Moderate nonattainment areas if certain conditions
are met. Under CAA section 188(d) and the PM2.5
Implementation Rule, the EPA may grant a state's request to extend the
attainment date for a Moderate area if: (1) The state has complied with
all requirements and commitments pertaining to the area in the
applicable implementation plan; and (2) for an area designated
nonattainment for the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for which the
state seeks an attainment date extension, the 98th percentile 24-hour
concentration at each monitor in that area for the calendar year that
includes the applicable attainment date is less than or equal to the
level of the applicable 24-hour standard (calculated according to the
data analysis requirement in 40 CFR part 50, appendix N). 40 CFR
51.1005(a)(1). The PM2.5 Implementation Rule explains that,
to meet the first criterion, a state needs to show that it has
``submitted the necessary attainment plan for the area for the
applicable PM2.5 NAAQS and is implementing the control
measures in the submission.'' See 81 FR 58070-58073, August 24, 2016.
The applicable implementation plan is defined as the plan submitted to
meet Moderate area requirements for the NAAQS at issue. Id. Sec.
51.1005(a)(2). The EPA cannot issue more than two one-year extensions
for a single Moderate area.
    As discussed in the proposed approval of the extension requests,
and in the response to the comment from WRA below, the Logan, UT-ID
nonattainment area has met the CAA section 188(d) requirements for
granting the two one-year extensions. Accordingly, the EPA is
finalizing approval of the two one-year extension requests to the
Moderate area attainment date as proposed.
    Comment: The second comment, sent by WRA, asserts that the State of
Utah has not complied with all requirements and commitments pertaining
to the area in the applicable implementation plan. Specifically,
according to WRA, the State of Utah has not met the reasonable further
progress and quantitative milestones requirements of the Moderate State
Implementation Plan (SIP). The commenter states that the State of
Utah's Logan, UT-ID PM2.5 SIP does not establish whether the
emission reductions have been achieved on a linear or stepwise basis in
years 4.5 (June 2013) and 7.5 (June 2017). Additionally, WRA states
that the Logan, UT-ID SIP contains no quantitative milestones; thus
according to WRA, the State of Utah has failed to define and failed to
demonstrate that any quantitative milestones have been achieved.
    WRA further states that air quality monitoring data indicates that
the extensions are inappropriate. The commenter provides air quality
data representing the 98th percentile values for the Logan
PM2.5 air quality monitors from 2010 to 2016, and additional
information regarding preliminary 2017 values.\1\ Additionally, the
commenter provides the specific three-year design values from 2010 to
2015 at the Logan monitors.\2\ Referring to the 98th percentiles and
design values, the commenter states that the monitoring data shows high
variability and fails to reveal any correlation between emission
reductions and better air quality. The commenter concludes that the
Logan, UT-ID nonattainment area has not attained the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS and should be reclassified to a ``Serious
Area.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ WRA notes that between 2010 and 2016, the 98th percentile
PM2.5 concentrations at the Logan monitors have been:
42.4 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\) in 2010, 42.3 [mu]g/
m\3\ in 2011, 27.1 [mu]g/m\3\ in 2012, 68.3 [mu]g/m\3\ in 2013, 41.1
[mu]g/m\3\ in 2014, 32.7 [mu]g/m\3\ in 2015, and 34.4 [mu]g/m\3\ in
2016. In 2017, WRA states that the 7th highest 24-hour
PM2.5 concentration is 39.9 [mu]g/m\3\ and the 8th
highest is 34.4 [mu]g/m\3\, with a high concentration of 75.7 [mu]g/
m\3\.
    \2\ WRA notes that between 2010 and 2015, the design values
(three-year average of the 98th percentile) have been: 37.3 [mu]g/
m\3\ in 2010-2012, 45.8 [mu]g/m\3\ in 2011-2013, 45 [mu]g/m\3\ in
2012-2014, 45.6 [mu]g/m\3\ in 2013-2015, and 34.5 [mu]g/m\3\ in
2014-2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter's interpretation of
the requirements found in CAA section 188(d) and the PM2.5
Implementation Rule. The relevant criteria for granting an extension
for a Moderate nonattainment area are whether (1) the state has
complied with all requirements and commitments pertaining to the area
in the applicable state plan; and (2) the 98th percentile 24-hour
concentration for the attainment year is less than or equal to the
level of the applicable 24-hour standard.\3\ In requesting an
extension, the State of Utah submitted a letter on May 2, 2017, stating
that it has complied with all requirements and commitments in the state
plan and that the 98th percentile 24-hour concentration for the
applicable year is below the standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ PM2.5 Implementation Rule, Section
51.1005(a)(1)(i)-(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding the first criterion for granting an attainment date
extension under CAA Section 188(d)(1), the preamble of the
PM2.5 Implementation Rule notes that CAA section 188(d)
``does not explicitly require that the state comply with all
requirements pertaining to the area in the CAA, but

merely requires that the state comply with all requirements in the
applicable SIP.'' \4\ In other words, so long as the state has
submitted the necessary attainment plan for the area for the applicable
PM2.5 NAAQS and is implementing the submitted plan, the fact
that the EPA has not yet acted on such submission to make it an
approved part of the applicable SIP should not preclude the state from
obtaining an extension of the attainment date under CAA section
188(d)(1). Specifically, in order to satisfy the first criterion, a
state would have to demonstrate that control measures included in the
plan submission as reasonably available control measures (RACM),
reasonably available control technology (RACT), and additional
reasonable measures for sources in the area have been implemented.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 81 FR 58070, August 24, 2016. This interpretation as applied
to CAA section 188(e) for Serious area attainment date extensions
was upheld by the Ninth Circuit in Vigil v. Leavitt, 366 F.3d 1025,
amended at 381 F.3d 826 (9th Cir. 2004).
    \5\ 81 FR 58070, August 24, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The regulatory requirements for extensions of the Moderate area
attainment date that the EPA promulgated in the PM2.5
Implementation Rule are consistent with the CAA. Under 40 CFR.
51.1005(a)(1)(i) and (a)(2), the state must have complied with all
requirements and commitments in the applicable implementation plan,
which is defined as the Moderate area plan submitted to meet the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.1003(a). Thus, the EPA has, by rule,
interpreted section 188(d)(1) to require the state to have complied
with the requirements to implement RACM, RACT, and additional
reasonable measures that were submitted in the Moderate area plan.\6\
To the extent the comment suggests the EPA must first approve the plan
submission before a Moderate area extension may be granted, that issue
was addressed in the implementation rule and the time to comment has
passed to challenge the EPA's regulatory interpretation of the statute.
See CAA section 307(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The comment appears to interpret the language in the
preamble stating that the State must have ``complied with all
requirements and commitments pertaining to the area in the
applicable implementation plan'' in a manner that appears
inconsistent with the EPA's implementation rule. The regulatory
language makes clear that the State must comply with the
requirements and commitments in the Moderate area plan that was
submitted to the EPA for the relevant NAAQS in the area at issue.
The preamble language clarifies that the relevant requirements and
commitments are those that apply to the nonattainment area for which
the extension has been requested and for the relevant NAAQS. Thus,
if the State failed to meet a requirement or commitment in the
applicable implementation plan for some other nonattainment area or
failed to meet a requirement applicable to a different NAAQS (e.g.
ozone), that would not bar the State from getting an extension for
the nonattainment area and NAAQS at issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA has acted on certain aspects of the State of Utah's SIP in
separate actions, as described in the proposed action to grant the two
one-year attainment date extensions.\7\ Moreover, the EPA's evaluation
as to whether the Moderate area plan has met all CAA requirements,
including those for reasonable further progress and quantitative
milestones, will be addressed in a separate action, which as noted
above is a different determination than whether the State of Utah has
complied with the requirements and commitments in the submitted
Moderate area plan. As discussed in the proposal, the State of Utah
submitted the necessary attainment plan for the area, the plan contains
control measures identified as RACM and RACT, and additional reasonable
measures for sources in the area and the State is implementing those
control measures.\8\ The comment does not dispute these facts. Thus,
the Logan, UT-ID nonattainment area has met the SIP submission
criterion found in CAA section 188(d)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 82 FR 25992 (June 6, 2017) and 82 FR 26638 (June 8, 2017).
The State of Utah submitted its Moderate PM2.5 attainment
SIP on December 22, 2014 and the State of Idaho submitted its
Moderate PM2.5 attainment SIP on December 14, 2012 and
supplement on December 24, 2014, respectively.
    \8\ 82 FR 25994/5, June 6, 2017; 82 FR 26638, June 8, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For the second criterion in CAA Section 188(d)(2), the EPA
interprets the requirement to demonstrate that the area had ``no more
than one exceedance'' of the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS to mean
that the state must simply demonstrate that the area had ``clean data''
in the year preceding the extension year.\9\ Thus, a state seeking an
attainment date extension for a Moderate nonattainment area for a 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS would be required to demonstrate that the
area had clean data with respect to the statistical form of that
particular standard (i.e., for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, the
98th percentile value did not exceed 35 micrograms per cubic meter
([mu]g/m\3\)) in the calendar year prior to the applicable attainment
date for the area.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 81 FR 58071, August 24, 2016.
    \10\ 81 FR 58010, 58070-58071, August 24, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted in the proposal,\11\ the years that need to be reviewed
for granting the two one-year attainment date extension requests are
2015 for the first extension request and 2016 for the second extension
request. To demonstrate that the Logan, UT-ID nonattainment area had
clean data for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, the 98th percentile
values may not exceed 35 [mu]g/m\3\. The 98th percentile value at the
Logan monitor (Utah) was 29.0 [mu]g/m\3\ in 2015 and at the Smithfield
monitor (Utah) was 34.4 [mu]g/m\3\ in 2016. Additionally, the 98th
percentile concentrations at the Franklin, Idaho monitor were 18.8
[mu]g/m\3\ in 2015 and 33.3 [mu]g/m\3\ in 2016. Thus, the area met the
second criterion for granting the two one-year extensions found in CAA
section 188(d)(2) as interpreted by the PM2.5 Implementation
Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 82 FR 25992 (June 6, 2017) and 82 FR 26638 (June 8, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The comment does not dispute that the area has met the criterion
set forth in 40 CFR 51.1005(a)(1)(ii). Instead, the comment cites other
monitoring data from previous years. Again, the EPA established its
interpretation in the PM2.5 Implementation Rule of what
monitoring data is relevant for CAA section 188(d)(2). Notwithstanding
that fact, WRA appears to believe that monitoring data from the years
before 2015 and 2016 must be considered and argues that it is not
reasonable to ignore such data. As with the comments on the first
extension criterion, the commenter appears to take issue with the EPA's
interpretations of the CAA as set forth in the implementation rule;
however, the time has passed to challenge the implementation rule. The
EPA evaluated the extension request consistent with the
PM2.5 Implementation Rule and we decline to adopt the
commenter's interpretation of the statute.
    To the extent the comment also argues that the EPA should deny the
extension requests in our discretion, we decline to do so. As explained
in our proposal and restated above, we have reviewed the requests from
the states and accompanying data, and we find that they support
granting two one-year extensions of the attainment date for this area.
Thus, we do not agree that the EPA must necessarily consider all
aspects of air quality (such as the other data the comment presents) in
addition to our evaluation of the extension year air quality data under
the second criterion. We also do not agree that the EPA must
necessarily consider the concerns the comment raises regarding
reasonable further progress and quantitative milestones in addition to
our evaluation under the first criterion of the state's compliance with
commitments and requirements in the submitted Moderate area plan.
    However, even if the EPA were to consider the other information
presented in the comment, we would still grant the extension requests.
First, we note that Utah's submitted Moderate

area plan does contain reasonable further progress and quantitative
milestone sections.\12\ We also disagree that the plan does not attempt
to show a correlation between emission reductions and air quality
improvement: that is precisely what the attainment demonstration does.
In remainder, the comment argues that these elements of the plan do not
meet all Moderate area requirements, but as explained above that will
be determined in a separate action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ The Logan, UT-ID Moderate PM2.5 SIP can be found
within the docket, EPA-R08-OAR-2017-0216. The entire submittal is
entitled ``December 16, 2014 State of Utah Moderate PM2.5
SIP Submittal,'' and the Logan section, ``Utah SIP Control Measures
for Area and Point Sources, Fine Particulate Matter,
PM2.5 SIP for the Logan, UT-ID Nonattainment Area,
Section IX. Part A.23'' starts on pdf page number 546. The Logan,
UT-ID Moderate PM2.5 SIP contains reasonable further
progress analysis and quantitative milestones in Chapter 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If we were to consider the other air quality data presented by the
comment, we would note that, as the comment states, there is
variability from year to year.\13\ In such a circumstance, granting the
extension request seems entirely consistent with the purpose of section
188(d): A state may have met all of its commitments and requirements in
the submitted Moderate area plan, but due to variability--such as poor
air quality in a single year prior to the extension year (in this case
2013)--the area fails to attain by the attainment date. In such a
circumstance, section 188(d) provides a means for dealing with this
variability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ In addition, the 98th percentile value for 2015 for Logan
appears to be incorrect in the comment. It should be 29.0 [micro]g/
m\3\ instead of 32.7 [micro]g/m\3\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. EPA's Final Action

    In response to requests from the State of Utah on May 2, 2017, and
from the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) on December
15, 2015, February 26, 2016, and April 25, 2017, the EPA is granting
two one-year attainment date extensions to the Moderate attainment date
for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for the Logan, UT-ID
nonattainment area. This final action extends the Moderate area
attainment date for the Logan, UT-ID nonattainment area from December
31, 2015 to December 31, 2017. This final action to extend the Moderate
attainment date for this nonattainment area is based on both states'
compliance with the requirements for the applicable SIPs for the area
and on the 2015 and 2016 PM2.5 98th percentile data from the
Logan (Utah), Smithfield (Utah), and Franklin (Idaho) monitoring sites
in the Logan, UT-ID nonattainment area. Consistent with CAA section
188(d) and 40 CFR 51.1005(a), the nonattainment area will remain a
Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment area, with a Moderate area
attainment date of December 31, 2017. Additionally, the states will not
have to submit the additional requirements that apply to Serious
PM2.5 nonattainment areas unless the area fails to attain
the standard by the December 31, 2017 Moderate area attainment date and
the area is reclassified to a Serious PM2.5 nonattainment
area.
    This action is not a redesignation to attainment under CAA section
107(d)(3)(E). The State of Utah and the State of Idaho are not
currently attaining the PM2.5 NAAQS in the nonattainment
area and have not submitted maintenance plans as required under section
175(A) of the CAA or met the other statutory requirements for
redesignation to attainment. The designation status for the area in 40
CFR part 81 will remain as a Moderate nonattainment area until such
time as the State of Utah and the State of Idaho meet the CAA
requirements for redesignation to attainment, or the area is
reclassified to Serious.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and therefore is
not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
This final action merely approves a state request as meeting federal
requirements and imposes no new requirements.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose any additional information collection
burden under the provisions of the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. This
action merely approves a state request for an attainment date
extension, and this action does not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities beyond those
imposed by state law. Approval of a state's request for an attainment
date extension does not create any new requirements and does not
directly regulate any entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. This action does not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, no additional costs to
state, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, will
result from this action.

E. 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. Pursuant
to the CAA, this action merely approves a state request for an
attainment date extension.

F. Executive Order 13175: Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175. No tribal areas are located in the nonattainment
area that will be receiving an attainment date extension. The CAA and
the Tribal Authority Rule establish the relationship of the federal
government and tribes in developing plans to attain the NAAQS, and this
rule does nothing to modify that relationship. Thus, Executive Order
13175 does not apply to this action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because the EPA does not believe any environmental health or safety
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to
children. This action merely approves a state request for an attainment
date extension and it does not impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards. This action
merely approves a state request for an attainment date extension.

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

    The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
This action approves a state request for an attainment date extension
based on the state's compliance with requirements and commitments in
its plan and recent air quality monitoring data that meets requirements
for an extension.

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    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. This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will
submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United States. 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).

L. 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 November 7, 2017. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be
filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: August 21, 2017.
Debra H. Thomas,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.
    Dated: August 22, 2017.
Michelle L. Pirzadeh,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2017-18878 Filed 9-7-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P