So there should be no surprises because the more you let time elapse on this, then, you know, it become as a shock to both you and us.  Why is there a gap, why is, so please let us know, we are open, we will let you know if you develop a mechanism how do, who do we correspond with, say we're going to this UL lab, of course, you know, UL lab, UL CB I'm sure will be open to that joint process.
              But it will answer a lot of those questions and bring this document into a more tighter and narrower constraints of 17025 and 17065.  Thank you.
              MR. ROBINSON:  Thank you.  And Dave Loebach had some questions.
              MR. SICKLES:  This is Douglas Sickles, sorry, from IS.  It'll be short.

              I do a lot of assessments, I used to work at UL years ago.  I just suggested, perhaps you could invite the assessors from the ABs to join OSHA on an NRTL assessment so that we can observe how you do it and learn from you and maybe vice versa, that one of your staff could join the ABs on some assessments.  It could be coordinated to be local, reduce expenses and that way we could collaborate.
              MR. ROBINSON:  Pass it right behind you.
              MR. LOEBACH:  I'm a little bit confused by OSHA's process.
              MR. ROBINSON:  Could you please state your name?
              MR. LOEBACH:  Oh, Dave Loebach.
              MR. ROBINSON:  And the organization you're representing?  Himself.
              MR. LOEBACH:  Yes myself, somewhat affiliated with ANSI.  Formerly of an organization within OSHA called the NRTL program.
              MR. ROBINSON:  Hi.

              MR. LOEBACH:  You're talking about transitioning to a different kind of program where you're going to be contracting out using third-party ABs.  What are you going to be doing, how are you going to be operating between now and then and why is there a delay?  Why wouldn't you just make the decision which one and do it now instead of --
              MR. ROBINSON:  Right.
              MR. LOEBACH:  -- X years downstream?
              MR. ROBINSON:  So --
              MR. LOEBACH:  What's going to be gained by doing that?
              MR. ROBINSON:  So the thought process is, and what the draft directive that you have in front of you is really the step to or the, basically what, it's taking the old directive and converting it over to something that accreditation bodies could actually read and understand.

              Formerly as an assessor I'm sure you would agree that there were a lot of confusing sections in the current directive that we are currently using.  So to hand that over to an ANSI an A2LA, IAS, whomever, they would quite honestly be lost.  They would not know how to read that or interpret that.
              So the first step that we needed to do was get it into a common language.  And this is the first step at that.
              Getting it into, as closely as possible so that we can start, you know, making edits and revisions to it.  Getting it into a common format or something to the common format and then it makes it a little easier to get it into the hands of the accreditation bodies.
              As for why we are not moving into, directly over to an accreditation body, we don't have the authority to do that.  We can't just hand this over to an accreditation body and have them do that.  It's not allowed under the rules.

              So in order to implement that change, we need to go into a rulemaking.  So the, sort of the process that internally we have been looking at is, get this directive out, get it in line with international standards, start talking with, if this is the route that we ultimately decide to go, start talking with the accreditation bodies.
              As we are fixing the program internally, let's start talking with them about how we are going to utilize accreditation or external accreditation bodies in the future, hold whatever stakeholder meetings, RFIs, Federal Register notices we need to do that to legally meet our obligations.

              But in the meantime continue to revise and development the directive so that when it is time, when we can legally hand it over to third-party accreditation bodies, we have the best document that we have available.  If that's ultimately the route that we decide to go.
              So, you know, I think it would be nice if we could just hand things over to the ABs, but right now we just need to address the legal aspects of that and put that out for, you know, public notice and comment and see if that is ultimately the route we want to go and change the regulations if, you know, as necessary to allow us to do that, allow us the freedom to work with the ABs in a manner that's going to be most conducive to all of us.
              MR. QUINLAN:  Barry Quinlan, TUV SUD.  What is OSHA's definition of operationally controlled, if that's the right word?
              MR. ROBINSON:  Oh, come on, Barry, it's 3 o'clock in the afternoon.
              MR. QUINLAN:  Well I think we've given you a pretty easy time so far.
              MR. ROBINSON:  I'm tired.  Where specifically are you looking?

              MR. QUINLAN:  I'm looking at recognized sites.
              MR. ROBINSON:  Oh, recognized --
              MR. QUINLAN:  It's in my, yes, in the back.
              MR. ROBINSON:  Okay.
              MR. QUINLAN:  I had, administered as being operational controlled.
              MR. ROBINSON:  Those, that terminology, those definitions we're still working out.
              MR. QUINLAN:  Oh.
              MR. ROBINSON:  As far as exactly what that's going to mean.  But basically what our, sort of what the working definition is or is being proposed is essentially that the NRTL is controlling or has control over what is going on at that site.
              MR. QUINLAN:  That's very vague.
              MR. ROBINSON:  I know.

              MR. QUINLAN:  Well I'm just trying to think if, are you suggesting, say in my organization the TUV SUD America could no longer be recognized, it would have to be TUV SUD AG to demonstrate operationally controlled.
              Because I don't know, I'm trying to get an understanding --
              MR. ROBINSON:  No --
              MR. QUINLAN:  -- how you see the lines.
              MR. ROBINSON:  You know, you brought yourself up so I'll --
              MR. QUINLAN:  Yes.
              MR. ROBINSON:  -- use you as an example.
              MR. QUINLAN:  And no, I'm using myself as an example.
              MR. ROBINSON:  I think in a situation like that where you have your parent company, who is effectively also an NRTL --
              MR. QUINLAN:  Yes, I know that complicates things.
              MR. ROBINSON:  Kind of sort.

              MR. QUINLAN:  Yes.
              MR. ROBINSON:  But yes.  So you are an NRTL and your parent company is an NRTL --
              MR. QUINLAN:  You are not correct, no.  TUV product service is an NRTL.
              MR. ROBINSON:  I'm sorry, okay.
              MR. QUINLAN:  And they are lead on by TUV.
              MR. ROBINSON:  Yes, okay.
              MR. QUINLAN:  So it's AG.
              MR. ROBINSON:  Yes.  So in effect since you, okay, so yes, since you have a common parent among both NRTLs you could have your parent become the NRTL and then each one of the TUV Product Services and TUV sites could in theory, under this definition, become recognized sites under a common parent.
              MR. QUINLAN:  Meaning could only be one NRTL under TUV services?
              MR. ROBINSON:  Could.
              MR. QUINLAN:  Yes.
              MR. ROBINSON:  Could.

              MR. QUINLAN:  Okay.
              MR. ROBINSON:  Not saying you have to.
              MR. QUINLAN:  No, okay.  That was the first question, I had a second quick question --
              MR. ROBINSON:  Okay.
              MR. QUINLAN:  -- actually tied on with the previous one.  So this is going to be a two stage process, initially OSHA is going to adopt 17025 and 65 and run with it themselves, that's the first phase of this directive, and then you spoke very early this morning about a revision to the, another revision to the directive 2017, '18 period.
              MR. ROBINSON:  Yes.
              MR. QUINLAN:  So we wouldn't even be, you're not even entertaining third-party creditors getting involved until that period, 2018, and beyond?

              MR. ROBINSON:  Quite honestly because it will take that long to affect a regulatory change.
              MR. QUINLAN:  Okay, I just wanted to make sure that everyone understands --
              MR. ROBINSON:  You know, if we ultimately decide to go down the route of involving accreditation bodies, there's going to be, I would suspect there's going to be a lot of discussions, more stakeholder meetings, more discussions with the ABs to determine how best to make use, make use of their resources and how best to get them to accomplish what we want and need to accomplish.
              MR. QUINLAN:  Okay.
              MR. ROBINSON:  So it's, while I could say that if we ultimately do decide to go down the route of utilizing external accreditation bodies, before that would be fully implemented we're looking, you know, three, four, five or so years down the road.

              It's not to say that we're going to ignore that for the next three to five years, we're going to be working on it and working on, you know, basically studying everything we need to to in place the laws to move forward with that when we're ready to go.
              But in the meantime we anticipate that there's going to be at least two revisions to the directive before ultimately it gets handed over to the accreditation bodies.
              MR. QUINLAN:  Okay.
              MR. ROBINSON:  Just as part of our process to close things out.
              MR. QUINLAN:  Well honestly I think most of us would like it to be far sooner but okay, thank you, Kevin.
              MR. HILL:  John Hill, FM Approvals.  Kevin, in your discussion you mentioned that the directive will be released about a year from now, fall 2015?
              MR. ROBINSON:  Yes.  In its final format, that is our current target is fall of 2015.

              MR. HILL:  Okay, and do you anticipate what the implementation period would be?  Especially like when you see that 17021, you know, 25, 65 --
              MR. ROBINSON:  Right.
              MR. HILL:  -- more recently, I think it's, what was it, two or three years to begin compliance?
              MR. ROBINSON:  Yes.  And I think to that, as we move this forward, I would go to the NRTLs and ask them and say, here's what we're proposing, you know, what's in here now absent of, you know, some of the terminology issues that Keith has brought up?
              You know, here's the preliminary directive that is, in theory, pretty darn close to hopefully final, how long would it take you to implement these processes?

              And that's where we're going to start getting into discussions with the NRTLs to see how big these changes are because in our read of it, I would say we probably changed the text of about 90 percent of our current directive.
              As far as procedural changes, I would guess probably less than ten percent of your procedures would need to change to meet this directive.  Is our guess.
              And quite honestly I don't know.  And that would be something that we would talk with the NRTLs to see how big of a change this really is and how long, you know, it would take to implement this.
              There, I suspect that there would be some period of where we would be doing gap analysis.  We've already started doing that to some extent informally, just letting people know if there are some proposed changes that we are, there are changes that we are proposing when we do on sight assessments.

              We're just letting the NRTLs know to keep an eye out for it.  But once we do get the directive published and finalized, there is certainly going to be some period of a gap analysis where we're running under the old requirements but starting to audit against the newer requirements just to help bring everyone up to speed.
              MR. HILL:  Well I think that one of the biggest changes that will effect the NRTLs will be the requirement for in-house calibration.
              MR. ROBINSON:  Right.
              MR. HILL:  Because like a lot of the NRTLs, we don't have that accreditation in place.  We use accredited 17025 lab calibration providers.
              MR. ROBINSON:  And that would be fine.
              MR. HILL:  Right, right, we already have that in place --
              MR. ROBINSON:  Yes.

              MR. HILL:  -- to do all of the, you know, the 90 percent or more than that of our equipment.  But it's those other one off type pieces of equipment that we calibrate ourselves using the standards that we have calibrated by the 17025 provider.
              MR. ROBINSON:  Right.
              MR. HILL:  So, and that takes time because if we have to go down that path then there's procedures changing all of the, you know, QA manual probably and everything else.
              MR. ROBINSON:  Right.
              MR. MAYNARD:  Hi, I'm Martin Maynard from SIEMIC Laboratories.  I just had a short comment and then a question.
              I think Keith from UL had brought up, compared those to the TCB Program with the FCC and I've been very involved with that for a longtime and I see a lot of similarities.  And I'm just going to throughout that, yes, I know that the OET office at FCC runs the TCB Program, would be glad to, you know, share best practices on this an how industry and the government agencies could work together because I mean I'm sure your agencies is just like the FCC, they aren't going to double their staff and so --

              MR. ROBINSON:  Right.
              MR. MAYNARD:  -- industries got to support this and we've got to trust each other and also maintain our integrity with the public.
              But anyway, the question was, so say a organization is going through their initial NRTL submittal application and we, I know we had talked informally about this --
              MR. ROBINSON:  Yes.
              MR. MAYNARD:  -- that there would be a grandfathering period, you know, because we don't have a, I mean this is still a draft and it will be a draft potentially for another year --
              MR. ROBINSON:  Right.
              MR. MAYNARD:  -- how will that grandfathering be documented or can be referenced or whatever?

              MR. ROBINSON:  Right.  So any organization that worked, if they were to apply today, we are going to be evaluating them against our current requirements.
              And as we've been doing with our current NRTLs is whether our major policy changes that we are proposing, we're just simply informally letting the laboratories know so they can be aware of, you know, an issue such as the calibration proposal that we've put out.  So any organization that would apply today is going to be evaluated under our current existing policies and guidelines.
              Once the new directive comes out they would run, you know, any new organization coming in would be subject to the same phase in process that we've established for all existing NRTLs.
              Where it could get a little messy is if we happen to roll out the new requirements as we're smack dab in the middle of an investigation of a candidate laboratory.

              So if we propose to, if we stick to the time line that we proposed of getting the directive out in the fall of 2015 and an application is submitted sometime in the summer of 2015 and we succeed in getting the new directive out and now we're sort of midstream, in that situation we generally know well ahead of time of when the directive would be coming out.  So in the summertime we would generally know, yes, are we going to hit this target or are we going to delay it.
              If we get an application in the summer of 2015 for a new NRTL, we would probably recommend that we just hold back on that application and wait until the new directive comes out.
              But that's where the conversations begins.  And I've had this conversation with several organization who are, have applied or are thinking of applying, of the pros and cons of applying now versus waiting until we roll out the new directive.

              And that's an answer that OSHA can't answer for any organization, that's more of a, here's the information, you as an organization who are looking to become an NRTL need to answer for yourself, what are the advantage versus this, advantages of doing it now versus waiting.
              So while we have a very aggressive schedule, fast for the federal government is slow by private sector means.  So there is sometime built into the process.
              MR. MAYNARD:  Thanks.
              MR. ROBINSON:  Okay.
              MR. MOWRY:  Thanks, Keith Mowry from UL.  Just one additional comment about the directive in a general way.
              We've been talking all day about 17065 and 17025.  And, you know, the directive text is based on those two standards.
              But it gives me a little bit of concern that the view is that all the evaluation work done, evaluation in 17065 terms, is somehow testing.  Because it's not.

              So 17065 says, use 17025 or 17020 or 17021 as requirements for evaluation activities.  And then the certification body basically has to scratch his head and say, okay, which one do I use for which activities, which makes the most sense.
              If you're going to embrace 17065 and not modify that, do you have any thoughts or additional things to say about 17020 or 17021?
              Now 17021 is management systems and that doesn't necessarily really come into play, maybe in the NRTL scheme.  So that one is kind of off the table, and I recognize that.
              But 17020 is not just about factory inspections, some people would say when you do a construction review it's a lot more to look, that looks a lot more like an inspection than it does a test.  And so you might think that the applicable 17020 requirements would apply to the activity of a construction review, a literature and marking review and that kind of thing.

              So an idea is to make sure you don't give the impression that 17025 is a requirements for everything going on in an evaluation.
              MR. ROBINSON:  Right.  And to that I would simple say that what is missing from this directive is an entire section of more the administrative requirements where a lot of that will start to come into play.
              So this is really addressing, the intent here was to address a lot of the technical requirements where the majority of the changes are going to be taking place and the more administrative aspects of the program are something that in the background we're still working on developing and it might help to fit some of those puzzle pieces together.  But absolutely yes, we are looking at those, we are considering those.

              MR. SOILS:  Kevin, this is Joel SOILS with the National Electrical Manufacturer's Association.  I just want to express certainly our pleasure at OSHA for taking the action that they're doing today.  It is really wonderful to see movement occurring to revise the program.  I think we're very appreciative of that.
              But I'd like to ask a little bit about Section 3.  I know the requirements aren't well defined in there yet, this is the recognition process and, you know, it gets into applications and renewal of existing NRTLs status.
              And the one question I have, and you spoke a little bit earlier, that currently anyone that's applying will have to comply with 1910.7 and you think that there's probably about ten percent policy change.  I'm just wondering, regarding applications and renewal, whether they'll be any policy changes there?

              And specifically really trying to hit at is, in 1910.7 there is one unique requirement for foreign based labs and it concerns OSHA's principle regarding equal treatment.  Just want to make sure that that's going to continue going forward and that it not just apply to initial NRTL status but follow on renewals as well that if a foreign body does apply, gets recognized, that if there are laws in their home country do change that we should be able to take a look at that and make another determination whether or not the principle of equal treatment is still in place.
              And we've heard from GAMBICA a little bit earlier on, talking about 765.  It was very interesting to hear the concerns from industry there.
              But the one thing they didn't discuss was openness.  And we are a very open process here and we've been open to others to come in and attend the stakeholders meeting.  We just want to make sure that that remains in place.  So you could talk to that I would certainly appreciate it.

              MR. ROBINSON:  Okay.  Any changes to that are going to be more regulatory changes.  Because the requirement for, just loosely what we're calling reciprocity and equal treatment, that is contained in the regulations.
              You know, so with the directive the directive can simply provide interpretations and policies, interpretations is wrong, more policies on how OSHA is implementing the requirements that are in the regulations.
              So for the short-term, absolutely nothing will change with respect to the impartiality aspect because there is a requirement in the regulations that dictates how we are to look at impartiality or I'm sorry, impartiality, equal treatment, it's been a long day, equal treatment of foreign based organizations.  And then the directive provides additional clarification and policies on that, on that requirement.

              Long-term, it really is a question of whether or not we go into rulemaking.  If we go into rulemaking then it opens the door possibly to taking a hard look at other aspects that are out there.
              You know, if we do ultimately go into accepting, if we ultimately decide to look at utilizing third-party accreditation bodies, and then we ultimately need to go into rulemaking, then it sort of opens the door to comments in other sections, I would believe.  Is that correct?
              Okay, but those are things that, you know, we would need to look at in the future, but any significant changes to the regulations would have to come in under the regulator aspects of it, so.
              (Off microphone comment.)
              MR. ROBINSON:  Correct.
              (Off microphone comment.)
              MR. GRABEL:  No, that's a regulatory --

              MR. ROBINSON:  It's a regulatory change.
              MR. GRABEL:  Yes.  Which OSHA is not considering.  At least in the short-term.
              MR. ROBINSON:  Short-term, that's not there.  And that's --
              MR. GRABEL:  Not on the table right now.
              MR. ROBINSON:  Correct.
              MR. SULLIVAN:  Dan Sullivan, TUV Rheinland.  A bit of clarification on the, for lack of a better word, the transition from SNAP Program to recognized site.
              MR. ROBINSON:  Okay.
              MR. SULLIVAN:  I understand the change in the definition and maybe I didn't understand it or hear it clearly earlier that administrative an operational control that's currently under the SNAP Program, would the same basic criteria be held to the new recognized sites?

              Because basically the definition of the recognized site has only changed in terms of ownership.  But that operational and administrative control, would that be equal to the SNAP Program in the new definition of recognized sites?
              MR. ROBINSON:  And a lot of that is unfortunately is in the section of the directive that we have not yet released, but right now as it stands, yes, we are, the current draft that we are working on is as close to the current definition of SNAP as we can make it while, you know, still keeping things there.  So that will all get pushed out when we ultimately push it out in the Federal Registry notice.  So current plans, yes.
              MR. UNGER:  Kevin, Peter Unger, A2LA.  First of all I'd like to applaud you and OSHA for adopting or working with the 17,000 series of standards and your consideration of the existing accreditation infrastructure, if you will, and the possibility of using accreditation to support your program.

              And of course if you do this, for calibration, the question comes up, what are the qualified accreditation bodies that are going to offer accreditation of calibration labs?  If you do it for other types of accreditation you'll have the same question.
              I believe you have to explore the idea or the, my suggestion would be to make sure the NRTLs have the option of perhaps using their existing accreditation body so that they don't have to change bodies or get an additional accreditation.

              And that would, might require you to work with several accreditation bodies.  And as I suggested this morning, the way you control the consistency is to have a system for training the assessors, pulling the assessors together from the accreditation bodies where you have input to that training on a periodic basis and then rely on the accreditation bodies to carry out and oversee and monitor their assessors on a periodic basis.
              MR. ROBINSON:  Okay.  Great, thank you.  Any other comments or questions?
              MR. HILL:  John Hill, FM Approvals.  With respect to the follow-up audits, surveillance audits, you mentioned in the directive that it's going, this shall be unannounced.
              MR. ROBINSON:  Yes.
              MR. HILL:  What promoted that and can you conceivably see all the issues that are going to come up with the auditors, the customers and so forth being available?
              Our auditors a lot of times to drive long distances out to the middle of nowhere, takes half the day to get there, contact person isn't there, plant's shut down for some reason or another, vice versa, you go out there, person isn't available, there's a meeting going on or something like.  How strict is that enforcement going to be of that requirement?

              MR. ROBINSON:  So the policy or the clarification is actually just a clarification.  The intent, when the current directive written was always for unannounced inspections, except in certain circumstances when it's seasonal or you just have gone out there and you can't get in to the facility.
              Generally speaking, about half of the NRTLs are doing unannounced inspections.  Half are doing some level of pre-announcement.
              Whether that's, hey, it's 8 o'clock in the morning, I'm going to be swinging by there sometime today, are you guys there?  Great, okay.  Or how's next month say the 23rd of November.  You know, it ranges based on what the policies are.

              Of the NRTLs that are conducting unannounced inspections, in the informal conversations I've had with them during onsite assessments, it's not a problem.  As far as getting onsite, seeing if there are products there, making sure that the right people are there.
              Every once in a while there are some concerns, there are some, you know, you, they're trying to do some cost saving measures or they have a company picnic and you happen to show up on that day that it was completely unplanned, you run into that.  But generally speaking, based on the conversations we've had with the NRTLs, the manufacturers not being available and not being able to meet is not an issue.
              MR. HILL:  Okay.  Okay, with that being said, would it be more preferable to not have shall or will or mention with exceptions or whatever, because that's the path that we would follow if we had to change our procedure?
              MR. ROBINSON:  Right.  So the, I believe that the draft directive attempts to provide some clarification there and it, it's essentially saying that inspections should be unannounced, or shall be unannounced rather.

              However, under certain circumstances you can provide some minimal notice.  At least that was the thought process.
              And it's been about three months since we've actually looked at the directive.  But as we were writing it, that was the process that we wanted to put into place.  And if it doesn't say that, then that's something where we would need to provide some additional clarification.
              So Page 21.  Okay, so Page 21, 7.9(b), certification body personnel shall conduct factory surveillance at manufacturing facilities without advance warning or notice to the manufacturer except in situations where there is limited seasonal production or when production has not been available for factory surveillance for a period exceeding 12 months.

              So if it's a seasonal production or production that is just very hit or miss, go ahead and arrange it.  Or if you have been to the factory multiple times over a course of 12 months and you haven't seen a product, go ahead and arrange it.
              And how each NRTL, again just based on the informal discussions we've had with them, many of them will do a, you know, a very casual phone call or a email or whatever, hey, we're thinking, you know, we've got our inspection coming up over the next two months, are you guys planning any major shutdowns or time off or are there dates that would not work for you?
              You're not announcing when you're going to be there but you're trying narrow down the specific dates on when it would not be advantageous to not show up.  So in that situation that type of a conversation, that type of an arrangement with a manufacturer would be perfectly acceptable.

              What we don't want to happen is, and what we were trying to stop with this language was, hey Mr. Manufacturer, we need to come out and do our factory inspection, how's 8 o'clock next Monday.  And giving them two, three, four week's notice.  Or, you know, how's January 15th?
              That type of advanced notice is something that we felt was, you know, could lead to some cleaning of the house that we were trying to prevent or trying to stop, so.
              MR. HILL:  With that being said, it still appears to us, at FM approvals, that the word, shall, is still too strong.  Because I think of that as test standards codes shall, no if ands or buts.
              But at the same time you mentioned about having them, the availability to clean house and everything, we don't see that.  I mean if places have systemic problems or whatever, they're not going to rid of it in a week's time or a couple of weeks.  We see there are ISO 9000 audits and our surveillance audits.

              MR. ROBINSON:  Okay.  Dave, not unless there was another one, okay, sorry.  You're next.
              MS. WALLSTROM:  Stina Wallstrom, Orgalime.  We have really enjoyed this discussion and it's a very good approach from OSHA's side to be so open and available so thank you for that.
              And I've heard plenty of times during this discussions that the NRTLs they want to be consulted before this new regime goes out for another round of tests.  And perhaps that's a good idea because there seems to be that they have a very good input.
              What I want to make sure is that if you invite NRTLs, please make sure that the industries are represented as well around the table.  Because NRTLs, they are very good at what they're doing but they have invested interests and somebody has to be in the room telling you what effect the decisions you make have on the industry.

              So we hope that we can continue this open process and that the industry can still be a part of it in the future.  Thank you.
              MR. ROBINSON:  All right, thank you.
              MR. LOEBACH:  Dave Loebach, I had a comment on unannounced surveillance audits.  Some of that is going to change industry by industry and maybe niche product by niche product.
              And the thing that came to my mind was a company might be manufacturing five super widgets.  That's all they're going to make.  They're going to make them in one batch.
              There's not too much, not too many options other than --
              MR. ROBINSON:  Absolutely.
              MR. LOEBACH:  -- arranging it.
              MR. ROBINSON:  Yes.

              MR. LOEBACH:  But it goes on and on.  I give this one example.  So I think you need to have a lot more opening in it than what you have.
              MR. ROBINSON:  Okay.
              MR. MOWRY:  I don't know, I'm looking down here, I thought we had something so.
              MR. NATHAN:  I just want to reiterate the fact that your certification body document, definitely look into the 17020:2012 version.  Because for instance, in 6.1 Section A, Subsection 4, where you talk about certification body needs to have personnel trained to conduct factory surveillance, and then further down in other sections you talk about personnel.
              17020 certainly addresses those.  In fact it has certain specific requirements of monitoring of those personnel and so forth and so forth.  So it gives you that flavor.

              Some reference to 17020 would be good because, again, that goes back to Keith's point to consider that in some fashion.  And there are some specific requirements which will be helpful to strengthen the certification program.
              MR. GRABEL:  I guess I just want to point out that the ISO documents themselves will reference these.  These --
              MR. ROBINSON:  yes.
              MR. GRABEL:  Yes, so these are meant to bolster or sit on top of the ISO documents.  So from that standpoint perhaps your needs are addressed, I don't know.
              MR. ROBINSON:  And that's I think, you know, we debated whether or not we wanted to release this directive now because there's major portions of it that aren't ready yet for public viewing.  But the decision was made, let's put out what we've got understanding that there might be some confusion.
              And I think that some of those, the comments we're hearing, will hopefully, hopefully be addressed by the portion of the directive that we have not yet released.  So.

              Any other questions or comments?  Way up in the corner.  Welcome to the NRTL program, Terrance, it doesn't get any better than this.
              MR. MARQUEDANT:  Kevin, Jim Marquedant from FM.  Just a quick question on the second statement on the top of Page 19, related to the IECEx scheme.
              Can you describe what you expect of the NRTLs when you talk about retaining control and responsibility for the scheme itself?
              MR. ROBINSON:  Hold on.  So it gets into how we were, how we were, you know, historically the NRTL program consisted of the testing and the certification body under, you know, when you look at 25 and 65, they become very different entities.
              So really what we're saying here is that an organization that is accepting data under the CB scheme, it's presumed that that would be handled under the certification body.  Yes, I don't know.

              MR. MARQUEDANT:  And is there some similar --
              MR. ROBINSON:  Look at this requirement, okay.
              MR. MARQUEDANT:  Is there some similar language around NRTLs accepting NRTL data?  So non-IECEx related?  I didn't see anything in there that was complementary that way.
              MR. ROBINSON:  Yes, and I think, yes, so I'm just backing things up here, so the same text also exists under --
              MR. MARQUEDANT:  CB.
              MR. ROBINSON:  -- under CB scheme --
              MR. MARQUEDANT:  Right.
              MR. ROBINSON:  -- which is, I think, a carry-over from what's in the current directive.

              Good point, I'll have to look into that.  And as well we'll take a look at that and see if that is, exists there under accepting data from other NRTLs.
              MR. MARQUEDANT:  Okay, thanks.
              MR. ROBINSON:  So I don't have an answer right now.  How's that for an answer?  Any other questions or comments?
              Okay, so I just want to say thank you to everyone.  As I mentioned this morning, we are going to continue to develop sort of the administrative, what we're calling the administrative sections of the directive, pull all that together along with some of the comments that we've taken here, take those into account, review those and take the appropriate steps.
              The complete directive will also be published in a Federal Register notice for public notice and comment.

              If anyone has any comments that they would like to share with us now, informally or, you know, in writing after the fact, we certainly are open to receiving those.  That will help us to identify things that you may find confusing, things that you may find as being contradictory, either within in our document or contradictory with the ISO standards.
              From a timing perspective, probably beginning in November we're going to start internally working on these documents.  If you can, if you are interested in providing comments to this informal, to this informal draft, if you could provide them by the end of November as a target that would be greatly appreciated.
              Again, you will still have an opportunity to provide comments under the formal notice and comment period, but we'll probably be looking at revising this document throughout December, January and the first part of 2015 preparing it for the Federal Register.

              So we certainly welcome any comments that you may have, criticisms and requests for clarification and questions.  With that, unless anyone has anything else, I just want to thank everyone for their time and I'll see you the next time.  Thank you.
              (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the record at 4:08 p.m.)


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 198 (Friday, October 12, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 62150-62158]
[FR Doc No: 2012-24096]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2011-0227; FRL-9734-7]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Kentucky;
Approval of Revisions to the Jefferson County Portion of the Kentucky
SIP; New Source Review; Prevention of Significant Deterioration

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to approve multiple changes to the
Jefferson County portion of the Kentucky State Implementation Plan
(SIP), submitted by the Commonwealth of Kentucky, through the Kentucky
Division for Air Quality (KDAQ), to EPA in two submittals dated June 1,
2009, and February 8, 2011. These revisions were submitted by KDAQ on
behalf of the Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District (LMAPCD)
(also referred to as Jefferson County) and modify the LMAPCD New Source
Review (NSR) Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting
regulations. EPA is approving Jefferson County's June 1, 2009, and
February 8, 2011, SIP revisions because the Agency has determined that
these SIP revisions are consistent with the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act)
and EPA regulations regarding the PSD permitting program.

DATES: This rule is effective November 13, 2012.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2011-0227. All documents in the docket
are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential
Business Information or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official hours of
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal
holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information regarding the
Jefferson County portion of the Kentucky SIP, contact Ms. Twunjala
Bradley, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. Ms. Bradley's telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For information regarding the GHG
Tailoring Rule, 2002 NSR Reform and NSR PM2.5 Rule, contact
Yolanda Adams, Air Permits Section, at the same address above. Ms.
Adams' telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For information regarding the Phase II Rule and
ozone NAAQS, contact Jane Spann, Regulatory Development Section, at the
same address above. Ms. Spann's telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For information regarding the
PM2.5 NAAQS, contact Mr. Joel Huey, Regulatory Development
Section, at the

same address above. Mr. Huey's telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. EPA's Action on Jefferson County's SIP Revision to Adopt the GHG
Tailoring Rule
III. EPA's Action on Jefferson County's SIP Revision to Adopt the
NSR PM2.5 PSD Permitting Requirements
IV. EPA's Action on Jefferson County's SIP Revisions to Adopt the
Phase II Rule
V. EPA's Action on Jefferson County's SIP Revision to Adopt the
Federal NSR Reform and Reasonable Possibility Provisions
VI. EPA's Action on Jefferson County's Automatic Rescission Clause
VII. Final Action
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On June 1, 2009, and February 8, 2011, the Commonwealth of Kentucky
through KDAQ (and on behalf of LMAPCD) submitted two SIP revisions to
EPA for approval into the Jefferson County portion of the Kentucky SIP
to adopt federal NSR PSD permitting requirements. The SIP revisions
consist of changes to the LMAPCD Air Quality Regulations, Regulation 2
Permit Requirements: Regulation 2.05--Prevention of Significant
Deterioration of Air Quality, and incorporate by reference (IBR) \1\
several NSR PSD permitting requirements promulgated at 40 CFR 52.21.
Specifically, the June 1, 2009, SIP revision: (1) Incorporates
provisions for implementing the PSD program for the PM2.5
NAAQS as promulgated in the NSR PM2.5 Rule,\2\ 73 FR 28321
(May 16, 2008); (2) adopts PSD provisions related to the implementation
of the 1997 8-hour ozone Phase II Rule (Phase II Rule), including
nitrogen oxides (NOX) as a precursor to ozone, 70 FR 71612
(November 29, 2005); and (3) adopts federal PSD regulations established
in the 2002 NSR Reform Rules, 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 2002), and the
NSR Reasonable Possibility Rule, 72 FR 72607 (December 21, 2007). These
PSD permitting provisions became effective in Jefferson County on May
20, 2009. The February 8, 2011, SIP revision provides Jefferson County
with the authority to regulate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions under its
PSD program and establishes appropriate emission thresholds for
determining which new stationary sources and modification projects
become subject to LMAPCD's PSD permitting requirements for their GHG
emissions as promulgated in the GHG Tailoring Rule, 75 FR 31514 (June
3, 2010). These GHG PSD applicability provisions became effective in
Jefferson County on November 17, 2010. In addition, the February 8,
2011, submittal adopts a provision that would automatically render
Jefferson County's Regulation 2.05 or a portion thereof invalid in the
wake of certain court decisions or other events (the ``automatic
rescission clause''). Approval of Jefferson County's GHG permitting
regulations also includes a proposal to simultaneously rescind the
federal implementation plan (FIP) that EPA promulgated on January 14,
2011. See 76 FR 2581.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Throughout this document IBR means incorporate or
incorporates by reference.
    \2\ With respect to the NSR PM2.5 Rule, Phase II Rule
and NSR Reform, Jefferson County's SIP revisions only address PSD
requirements at Regulation 2.05. The nonattainment NSR provisions
for Jefferson County (Regulation 2.04) for these provisions are
still under development by LMAPCD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 6, 2012, EPA published a proposed rulemaking to approve the
aforementioned changes to Jefferson County's NSR PSD program. See 77 FR
33363. Comments on the proposed rulemaking were due on or before July
6, 2012. No comments, adverse or otherwise, were received on EPA's June
6, 2012, proposed rulemaking. Pursuant to section 110 of the CAA, EPA
is now taking final action to approve the changes to Jefferson County's
NSR PSD program as provided in EPA's June 6, 2012, proposed rulemaking.
A summary of the background for today's final action is provided below.
EPA's June 6, 2012, proposed rulemaking contains more detailed
information regarding the Jefferson County SIP revisions being approved
today. Please refer to the relevant sections in the proposed rulemaking
for EPA's rationale for this final action. See 77 FR 33363.
    In addition to incorporating the changes discussed above, Jefferson
County's proposed SIP revisions include PSD permitting provisions that:
(1) Exclude facilities that produce ethanol through a natural
fermentation process from the definition of ``chemical process plants''
in the major NSR source permitting program as amended in the Ethanol
Rule, 72 FR 24060 (May 1, 2007); and (2) IBR changes pursuant to EPA's
Fugitive Emissions Rule, 73 FR 77882 (December 19, 2008).\3\ In today's
rulemaking, EPA is not taking action on LMAPCD's changes to its PSD
regulations to adopt provisions promulgated in the Ethanol Rule nor is
EPA taking action on LMAPCD's changes to incorporate the provisions of
the Fugitive Emissions Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ On March 31, 2010, EPA stayed the Fugitive Emissions Rule
(73 FR 77882) for 18 months to October 3, 2011, to allow the Agency
time to propose, take comment and issue a final action regarding the
inclusion of fugitive emissions in NSR applicability determinations.
This stay was established as a result of EPA granting the Natural
Resource Defense Council's petition for reconsideration on the
original Fugitive Emissions Rule. See 73 FR 77882 (December 19,
2008). On March 30, 2011 (76 FR 17548), EPA proposed an interim rule
which superseded the March 31, 2010, stay and clarified and extended
the stay of the Fugitive Emission Rule until EPA completes its
reconsideration. The interim rule simply reverts the CFR text back
to the language that existed prior to the Fugitive Emissions Rule
changes in the December 19, 2008, rulemaking. EPA plans to issue a
final rule affirming the interim rule as final. The final rule will
remain in effect until EPA completes its reconsideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Jefferson County's practice for revising its PSD regulations is to
IBR into its SIP the version of the Code of Federal Regulations (at 40
CFR 52.21) that is in effect as of a specified date. LMAPCD's
Regulation 2.05 contains the preconstruction review program that
provides for the prevention of significant deterioration of ambient air
quality as required under part C of title I of the CAA (the PSD
program). Jefferson County's June 1, 2009, SIP revision, which provided
version 9 of LMAPCD's Regulation 2.05, IBR the federal PSD regulations
as set forth at 40 CFR 52.21, and as amended as of July 1, 2008.
Subsequently, the February 8, 2011, SIP revision, which provided
version 10 of LMAPCD's Regulation 2.05, IBR federal PSD regulations as
set forth at 40 CFR 52.21, and as amended as of July 1, 2010, thereby
superseding version 9 of Regulation 2.05. Throughout this rulemaking,
EPA will refer to the June 1, 2009, and February 8, 2011, SIP revisions
as ``Jefferson County's SIP revisions.'' In effect, the Jefferson
County SIP revisions change the LMAPCD's IBR date for Regulation 2.05
to July 1, 2010.

II. EPA's Action on Jefferson County's SIP Revision To Adopt the GHG
Tailoring Rule

    As mentioned above, on February 8, 2011, KDAQ, on behalf of LMAPCD,
submitted to EPA a revision to the Jefferson County portion of
Kentucky's SIP to IBR NSR PSD requirements for GHG. Specifically, the
February 8, 2011, SIP revision includes changes to LMAPCD's Regulation
2.05--Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality (version
10) to provide authority to LMAPCD to regulate GHG under the PSD
program, and establishes appropriate PSD applicability thresholds for
GHGs, consistent with EPA's Tailoring Rule.

    LMAPCD is currently the SIP-approved permitting authority for the
PSD program in Jefferson County, Kentucky, and does not interpret its
current SIP-approved PSD regulations at Regulation 2.05 (i.e., version
9), which IBR the federal PSD regulations, to be applicable to GHG. In
letters dated October 4, 2010, and October 19, 2010, LMAPCD notified
EPA that it did not have the authority to regulate GHG under the PSD
program, and thus was in the process of revising its regulations (the
subject of this final action) to provide LMAPCD with this authority.
The February 8, 2011, SIP revision IBR the federal PSD regulations at
40 CFR 52.21 as of July 2010 into Jefferson County Regulation 2.05 to
include the relevant federal GHG Tailoring Rule changes that provide
LMAPCD with the authority to regulate GHG under the PSD program and
establish the thresholds for GHG permitting applicability. The GHG
Tailoring Rule changes that this final action incorporates into the
Jefferson County portion of Kentucky's SIP define the term ``subject to
regulation'' for the PSD program and define ``greenhouse gases'' and
``tons per year (tpy) carbon dioxide equivalent emissions''
(CO2e). Additionally, the changes specify the methodology
for calculating an emissions increase for GHG, the applicable
thresholds for GHG emissions subject to PSD, and the schedule for when
the applicability thresholds take effect. See 75 FR at 31606-31607. EPA
has determined that these provisions, which provide LMAPCD with the
authority to regulate GHG under the PSD program and establish the
thresholds for GHG permitting applicability, are consistent with EPA's
PSD regulations for GHG emitting sources as promulgated in the GHG
Tailoring Rule and section 110 of the CAA. Therefore, EPA is approving
the GHG PSD permitting revision into the Jefferson County portion of
Kentucky's SIP. In addition, EPA is rescinding the FIP promulgated
January 14, 2011, codified in 40 CFR 52.37(b)(7), that ensures the
availability of a PSD-permitting authority for GHG-emitting sources in
Jefferson County, Kentucky. This FIP is no longer necessary since the
GHG PSD permitting revision is being approved into the Jefferson County
portion of Kentucky's SIP. Therefore, this final action removes
Jefferson County from the list at 40 CFR section 52.37.

III. EPA's Action on Jefferson County's SIP Revision To Adopt the NSR
PM2.5 PSD Permitting Requirements

    Jefferson County's Regulation 2.05--Prevention of Significant
Deterioration of Air Quality IBR the provisions at 40 CFR 52.21, as
amended in the NSR PM2.5 Rule for PSD. Specifically,
Jefferson County's June 1, 2009, and February 8, 2011, SIP revisions
IBR the following NSR PM2.5 provisions for PSD: (1)
Requirement for NSR permits to address directly emitted
PM2.5 and precursor pollutants; (2) significant emission
rates for direct PM2.5 and precursor pollutants
(SO2 and NOX); (3) PSD and NNSR requirement of
states to address condensable PM in establishing enforceable emission
limits for PM10 or PM2.5; and (4)
PM2.5 emission offsets regarding the PM10
``grandfathering'' provision. In the February 8, 2011, SIP revision,
LMAPCD elected to IBR the grandfathering provision at 40 CFR
52.21(i)(1)(xi) in its PSD regulations at Regulation 2.05. EPA took
final action to repeal the PM10 grandfathering provision on
May 18, 2011. See 76 FR 28646. Therefore, EPA is not taking action to
approve this provision into the Jefferson County portion of the
Kentucky SIP. Jefferson County will need to update its PSD provisions
to reflect the repeal of the PM10 grandfathering provision
in federal regulations at 40 CFR 52.21. At this time Jefferson County's
PSD regulations are approvable because they are at least as stringent
as the current federal regulations and are consistent with section 110
of the CAA.
    Jefferson County's February 11, 2011, SIP revision also IBR, into
the Jefferson County portion of the Kentucky SIP, PSD regulations
regarding the requirement to address condensable PM in applicability
determinations and in establishing enforceable emission limits in PSD
and nonattainment NSR permits, as established in the NSR
PM2.5 Rule. As discussed above in Section III.B, under a
separate action, EPA has proposed to correct the inadvertent inclusion
of ``particulate matter emissions'' in the definition of ``regulated
NSR pollutant'' as an indicator for which condensable emissions must be
addressed. See 77 FR 75656 (March 16, 2012). Further, on May 14, 2012,
the Commonwealth of Kentucky, on behalf of LMAPCD, provided a letter to
EPA with clarification of Jefferson County's intent in light of EPA's
March 12, 2012, proposed rulemaking. Specifically, in the letter
Kentucky requested that EPA not approve (into the Jefferson County
portion of the SIP) the term ``particulate matter emissions'' (at
Regulation 2.05) as part of the definition for ``regulated NSR
pollutant'' that condensable emissions be accounted for in
applicability determinations and in establishing emissions limitations
for PM. Therefore, given the Commonwealth's and LMAPCD's request and
EPA's intention to amend the definition of ``regulated NSR pollutant,''
EPA is not taking action to approve the terminology ``particulate
matter emissions'' into the Jefferson County portion of the Kentucky
SIP (at Regulation 2.05) for the condensable provision at the
definition of ``regulated NSR pollutant.'' EPA is, however, approving
into the SIP at Regulation 2.05 the remaining condensable requirement
at 40 CFR 51.166(b)(49)(vi) that condensable emissions be accounted for
in applicability determinations and in establishing emissions
limitations for PM2.5 and PM10. EPA has
determined that Jefferson County's June 1, 2009, and February 8, 2011,
SIP revisions are consistent with the NSR PM2.5 Rule for PSD
and with section 110 of the CAA. See NSR PM2.5 Rule, 75 FR
31514.

IV. EPA's Analysis of Jefferson County's SIP Revisions To Adopt the
Phase II Rule

    Jefferson County's June 1, 2009, SIP revision updated LMAPCD's PSD
program to include NOX as an ozone precursor for PSD
permitting, consistent with changes to the federal regulations set
forth in the Phase II Rule at 40 CFR 52.21. Subsequently, on February
8, 2011, KDAQ submitted a SIP revision which included the June 1, 2009,
changes in addition to other federal PSD permitting updates to the
Jefferson County portion of the Kentucky SIP. Jefferson County's SIP
revisions IBR the federal PSD regulations (at 40 CFR 52.21) to include
the NOX as a precursor PSD-only permitting provisions
promulgated in the Phase II Rule into the Jefferson County portion of
the Kentucky SIP at Regulation 2.05--Prevention of Significant
Deterioration of Air Quality (version 10) as of July 1, 2010. EPA has
determined that Jefferson County's SIP revisions are consistent with
the PSD Phase II Rule permitting requirements and section 110 of the
CAA.

V. EPA's Action on Jefferson County's SIP Revision To Adopt the Federal
NSR Reform and Reasonable Possibility Provisions

    As mentioned in Section I, LMAPCD's PSD Program at Regulation
2.05--Prevention of Significant Deterioration for Air Quality
establishes the preconstruction review program as

required under part C of title I of the CAA. The changes to LMAPCD's
PSD rules, which EPA is now approving into the Jefferson County portion
of the Kentucky SIP, were established to update the existing PSD
Program to meet the requirements of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules.
Jefferson County's SIP revisions IBR the 2002 NSR Reform PSD changes
regarding baseline actual emissions, actual-to-projected-actual
applicability tests, and plantwide applicability limit provisions.
Jefferson County's June 1, 2009, and February 8, 2011, SIP revisions
both address the federal PSD requirements promulgated in the 2002 NSR
Reform Rules. The proposed revisions explicitly exclude the pollution
control projects and clean unit portions of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules
that were vacated by the D.C. Circuit Court. See New York v. EPA, 413
F.3d 3 (D.C. Cir. 2005).
    With regard to the remanded portions of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules
related to recordkeeping and EPA's December 21, 2007, clarification of
the term ``reasonable possibility'' (72 FR 72607), Jefferson County's
SIP revisions IBR the federal revised ``reasonable possibility''
provisions at 40 CFR 52.21(r)(6). Thus, LMAPCD's recordkeeping and
reporting provisions are the same as the federal requirements
promulgated in EPA's December 21, 2007, final action.
    In addition to incorporating the federal PSD regulations, Jefferson
County's February 8, 2011, SIP revision includes a technical support
document (TSD), which assesses the impact of adopting the 2002 NSR
Reform provisions into Jefferson County's PSD permitting program and
the air quality impacts. As mentioned above, LMAPCD has a SIP-approved
PSD program. However, due to the limited number of sources in Jefferson
County, the permitting program does not assess many major PSD permits.
In fact, in nearly ten years, LMAPCD has only analyzed two projects
under PSD. Most sources in Jefferson County are permitted through
LMAPCD's minor source program, which allows sources to take emission
limits to avoid PSD permitting. Additionally, regarding criteria
pollutants, the TSD explains that sources typically subject to PSD
permitting (i.e., point sources) have not been the primary driver for
past or current nonattainment NAAQS designations in Jefferson County.
See the TSD in the Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2011-0227.
    LMAPCD's TSD concluded that adoption of the 2002 NSR Reform
improvements would not impede the LMAPCD's ability to comply with the
NAAQS or any reasonable progress towards continued maintenance. After
evaluating Jefferson County's SIP revision and the TSD provided with
the February 8, 2011, SIP revision, EPA has determined that the SIP
revisions to adopt NSR Reform and reasonable possibility provisions are
consistent with the requirements for the preparation, adoption and
submittal of implementation plans for the federal PSD program at 40 CFR
52.21 and the 2002 NSR Reform Rule.

VI. EPA's Action for Jefferson County's Automatic Rescission Clause

    Jefferson County's February 8, 2011, SIP revision adds a new
section to Regulation 2.05, Section 2 ``Effect of Stay, Vacatur, or
Withdrawal,'' also known as an automatic rescission clause. This clause
provides that in the event that EPA or a federal court stays, vacates,
or withdraws any section or subsection of 40 CFR 52.21, that section or
subsection shall automatically be deemed stayed, vacated or withdrawn
from Jefferson County's SIP-approved PSD program at Regulation 2.05.
The period of delay resulting from a stay would begin and end for
purposes of Jefferson County's SIP on the date specified by EPA in a
Federal Register notice announcing the stay. Likewise, any provision
that is vacated or withdrawn shall be null and void for purposes of
Jefferson County's SIP as of the date specified in the notice of
vacatur or withdrawal published by EPA in a Federal Register notice.
    EPA has determined that Jefferson County's automatic rescission
clause is approvable. In assessing the approvability of this provision,
EPA considered two key factors: (1) Whether the public will be given
reasonable notice of any change to the SIP that occurs as a result of
the automatic rescission clause, and (2) whether any future change to
the SIP that occurs as a result of the automatic rescission clause
would be consistent with EPA's interpretation of the effect of the
triggering EPA or federal court action (e.g., the extent of an
administrative or judicial stay). These criteria are derived from the
SIP revision procedures set forth in the CAA and federal regulations.
    Regarding public notice, CAA section 110(l) provides that any
revision to a SIP submitted by a state to EPA for approval ``shall be
adopted by such State after reasonable notice and public hearing.'' In
accordance with CAA section 110(l), the LMAPCD followed applicable
notice-and-comment procedures prior to adopting the automatic
rescission clause. Thus, the public is on notice that the Jefferson
County portion of the Kentucky SIP will automatically update to reflect
any EPA or federal action that stays, withdraws, or vacates any portion
of 40 CFR 52.21. In addition, the automatic rescission clause provides
that no change to the SIP will occur until EPA publishes a Federal
Register notice announcing that a portion of 40 CFR 52.21 has been
stayed, vacated, or withdrawn. Thus, the timing and extent of any
future SIP change resulting from the automatic rescission clause will
be clear to both the regulated community and the general public.
    EPA's consideration of whether any SIP change resulting from the
proposed automatic rescission clause would be consistent with EPA's
interpretation of the effect of the triggering action on federal
regulations is based on 40 CFR 51.105. Under 40 CFR 51.105,
``[r]evisions of a plan, or any portion thereof, will not be considered
part of an applicable plan until such revisions have been approved by
the Administrator in accordance with this part.'' See 40 CFR 51.105.
While EPA is approving the automatic updating of the Jefferson County
portion of the Kentucky SIP to reflect the stay, withdrawal or vacatur
of any section or subsection of 40 CFR 52.21, there could be varying
interpretations of the timing and extent of changes to 40 CFR 52.21
resulting from a given EPA or federal court action. By tying the
automatic updating of the SIP to EPA's publication of a Federal
Register notice announcing the change to 40 CFR 52.21, the automatic
rescission clause ensures that any change to the SIP will be consistent
with EPA's interpretation of the triggering action.

VII. Final Action

    Pursuant to section 110 of the CAA, EPA is taking final action to
approve Jefferson County's June 1, 2009, and February 8, 2011, SIP
revisions which IBR (into the Jefferson County portion of the Kentucky
SIP) federal requirements for NSR PSD permitting. Jefferson County's
SIP revisions consist of changes to the LMAPCD Air Quality Regulation
2.05--Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality and
address several NSR PSD permitting requirements promulgated at 40 CFR
52.21. Specifically, Jefferson County's June 1, 2009, SIP revision
adopts federal regulations relating to PSD requirements for the NSR
PM2.5 Rule, the Phase II Rule, the 2002 NSR Reform Rule, and
the NSR Reasonable Possibility Rule into the Jefferson County portion
of the Kentucky SIP. Jefferson County's February 8, 2011, SIP revision
includes all of the aforementioned updates to

LMAPCD's PSD regulations but also provides Jefferson County with the
authority to regulate GHG emissions under its PSD program, establishes
appropriate emissions thresholds for determining PSD applicability with
respect to new and modified GHG-emitting sources (in accordance with
EPA's Tailoring Rule), and incorporates an automatic rescission clause
for 40 CFR 52.21 regulations. EPA has determined that these SIP
revisions are approvable because they are consistent with the CAA and
EPA regulations regarding PSD permitting. In addition, EPA is
rescinding the FIP promulgated on January 14, 2011, at 40 CFR
52.37(b)(7); therefore, this final rule removes Jefferson County from
the PSD GHG FIP listing at 40 CFR section 52.37.

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by
Commonwealth law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state,
and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by December 11, 2012. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Greenhouse gases,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate
matter, Nitrogen Oxides, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements and
Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: September 12, 2012.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart A--General Provisions

Sec.  52.37  [Amended]

0
2. Section 52.37 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph (b)(7).

Subpart S--Kentucky

0
3. Section 52.920(c) Table 2 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  52.920  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                         Table 2--EPA-Approved Jefferson County Regulations for Kentucky
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Federal
         Reg               Title/subject      EPA approval      Register        District         Explanation
                                                  date           notice      effective date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Reg 1--General Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.01.................  General Application         10/23/01     66 FR 53660        03/17/99  ...................
                        of Regulations and
                        Standards.
1.02.................  Definitions.........        11/19/02     67 FR 69688        12/19/01  ...................
1.03.................  Abbreviations and           11/19/02     67 FR 69688        05/15/02  ...................
                        Acronyms.
1.04.................  Performance Tests...        10/23/01     66 FR 53660        11/19/97  ...................
1.05.................  Compliance with             10/23/01     66 FR 53660        11/18/92  ...................
                        Emission Standards
                        and Maintenance
                        Requirements.

1.06.................  Source Self-                10/23/01     66 FR 53660        12/15/93  ...................
                        Monitoring and
                        Reporting.
1.07.................  Emissions During            10/23/01     66 FR 53660        01/17/96  ...................
                        Startups,
                        Shutdowns,
                        Malfunctions and
                        Emergencies.
1.08.................  Administrative              11/03/03     68 FR 62236        06/19/02  ...................
                        Procedures.
1.09.................  Prohibition of Air          10/23/01     66 FR 53660        11/16/83  ...................
                        Pollution.
1.10.................  Circumvention.......        10/23/01     66 FR 53660        04/19/72  ...................
1.11.................  Control of Open             10/23/01     66 FR 53660        02/22/90  ...................
                        Burning.
1.14.................  Control of Fugitive         10/23/01     66 FR 53660        01/20/88  ...................
                        Particulate
                        Emissions.
1.18.................  Rule Effectiveness..        10/23/01     66 FR 53689        09/21/94  ...................
1.19.................  Administrative              11/19/02     67 FR 69688        05/15/02  ...................
                        Hearings.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Reg 2--Permit Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.01.................  General Application.        10/23/01     66 FR 53660        04/21/82  ...................
2.02.................  Air Pollution               10/23/01     66 FR 53660        06/21/95  ...................
                        Regulation
                        Requirements and
                        Exemptions.
2.03.................  Permit Requirements--       10/23/01     66 FR 53660        12/15/93  ...................
                        Non-Title V
                        Construction and
                        Operating Permits
                        and Demolition/
                        Renovation Permits.
2.04.................  Construction or             10/23/01     66 FR 53660        03/17/93  ...................
                        Modification of
                        Major Sources in or
                        Impacting Upon Non-
                        Attainment Areas
                        (Emission Offset
                        Requirements).
2.05.................  Prevention of               10/12/12         [Insert        11/17/10  This approval does
                        Significant                             citation of                   not include
                        Deterioration of                       publication]                   Jefferson County's
                        Air Quality.                                                          revisions to
                                                                                incorporate by
                                                                                reference the
                                                                                Ethanol Rule (72
                                                                                FR 24060, May 1,
                                                                                2007), Fugitives
                                                                                Emissions Rule (73
                                                                                FR 77882, December
                                                                                19, 2008), the
                                                                                PM10
                                                                                Grandfathering
                                                                                Provision and the
                                                                                term ``particulate
                                                                                matter emissions''
                                                                                (at 40 CFR
                                                                                52.21(i)(1)(xi)
                                                                                and
                                                                                51.166(b)(49)(vi)
                                                                                respectively in
                                                                                the NSR PM2.5 Rule
                                                                                (73 FR 28321, May
                                                                                16, 2008).
2.06.................  Permit Requirements--       10/23/01     66 FR 53660        11/16/83  ...................
                        Other Sources.
2.07.................  Public Notification         10/23/01     66 FR 53660        06/21/95  ...................
                        for Title V, PSD,
                        and Offset Permits;
                        SIP Revisions; and
                        Use of Emission
                        Reduction Credits.
2.09.................  Causes for Permit           11/03/03     68 FR 62236        06/19/02  ...................
                        Suspension.
2.10.................  Stack Height                10/23/01     66 FR 53660        07/19/89  ...................
                        Considerations.
2.11.................  Air Quality Model           10/23/01     66 FR 53660        05/19/99  ...................
                        Usage.
2.17.................  Federally                   11/03/03     68 FR 62236        06/19/02  ...................
                        Enforceable
                        District Origin
                        Operating Permits.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Reg 3--Ambient Air Quality Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.01.................  Purpose of Standards        10/23/01     66 FR 53660        06/13/79  ...................
                        and Expression of
                        Non-Degradation
                        Intention.
3.02.................  Applicability of            10/23/01     66 FR 53660        06/13/79  ...................
                        Ambient Air Quality
                        Standards.
3.03.................  Definitions.........        10/23/01     66 FR 53660        06/13/79  ...................
3.04.................  Ambient Air Quality         10/23/01     66 FR 53660        04/20/88  ...................
                        Standards.
3.05.................  Methods of                  10/23/01     66 FR 53660        04/20/88  ...................
                        Measurement.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Reg 4--Emergency Episodes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.01.................  General Provisions          10/23/01     66 FR 53660        06/13/79  ...................
                        for Emergency
                        Episodes.
4.02.................  Episode Criteria....        10/23/01     66 FR 53660        04/20/88  ...................
4.03.................  General Abatement           10/23/01     66 FR 53660        02/16/83  ...................
                        Requirements.
4.04.................  Particulate and             10/23/01     66 FR 53660        04/19/72  ...................
                        Sulfur Dioxide
                        Reduction
                        Requirements.

4.05.................  Hydrocarbon and             10/23/01     66 FR 53660        02/16/83  ...................
                        Nitrogen Oxides
                        Reduction
                        Requirements.
4.06.................  Carbon Monoxide             10/23/01     66 FR 53660        02/16/83  ...................
                        Reduction
                        Requirements.
4.07.................  Episode Reporting           10/23/01     66 FR 53660        06/13/79  ...................
                        Requirements.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Reg 6--Standards of Performance for Existing Affected Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6.01.................  General Provisions..        10/23/01     66 FR 53660        11/16/83  ...................
6.02.................  Emission Monitoring         10/23/01     66 FR 53660        11/16/83  ...................
                        for Existing
                        Sources.
6.07.................  Standards of                10/23/01     66 FR 53660        06/13/79  ...................
                        Performance for
                        Existing Indirect
                        Heat Exchangers.
6.08.................  Standard of                 10/23/01     66 FR 53660        06/13/79  ...................
                        Performance for
                        Existing
                        Incinerators.
6.09.................  Standards of                10/23/01     66 FR 53660        03/17/99  ...................
                        Performance for
                        Existing Process
                        Operations.
6.10.................  Standard of                 10/23/01     66 FR 53660        11/16/83  ...................
                        Performance for
                        Existing Process
                        Gas Streams.
6.12.................  Standard of                 10/23/01     66 FR 53661        05/15/91  ...................
                        Performance for
                        Existing Asphalt
                        Paving Operations.
6.13.................  Standard of                 10/23/01     66 FR 53661        05/15/91  ...................
                        Performance for
                        Existing Storage
                        Vessels for
                        Volatile Organic
                        Compounds.
6.14.................  Standard of                 10/23/01     66 FR 53661        04/21/82  ...................
                        Performance for
                        Selected Existing
                        Petroleum Refining
                        Processes and
                        Equipment.
6.15.................  Standard of                 01/25/80      45 FR 6092        06/13/79  ...................
                        Performance for
                        Gasoline Transfer
                        to Existing Service
                        Station Storage
                        Tanks (Stage I
                        Vapor Recovery).
6.16.................  Standard of                 10/23/01     66 FR 53661        05/15/91  ...................
                        Performance for
                        Existing Large
                        Appliance Surface
                        Coating Operations.
6.17.................  Standard of                 10/23/01     66 FR 53661        11/18/92  ...................
                        Performance for
                        Existing Automobile
                        and Truck Surface
                        Coating Operations.
6.18.................  Standards of                11/19/02     67 FR 69688        05/15/02  ...................
                        Performance for
                        Existing Solvent
                        Metal Cleaning
                        Equipment.
6.19.................  Standard of                 10/23/01     66 FR 53661        05/15/91  ...................
                        Performance for
                        Existing Metal
                        Furniture Surface
                        Coating Operations.
6.20.................  Standard of                 10/23/01     66 FR 53661        11/16/83  ...................
                        Performance for
                        Existing Bulk
                        Gasoline Plants.
6.21.................  Standard of                 10/23/01     66 FR 53661        11/16/83  ...................
                        Performance for
                        Existing Gasoline
                        Loading Facilities
                        at Bulk Terminals.
6.22.................  Standard of                 10/23/01     66 FR 53661        03/17/93  ...................
                        Performance for
                        Existing Volatile
                        Organic Materials
                        Loading Facilities.
6.24.................  Standard of                 10/23/01     66 FR 53661        03/17/93  ...................
                        Performance for
                        Existing Sources
                        Using Organic
                        Materials.
6.26.................  Standards of                10/23/01     66 FR 53661        06/13/79  ...................
                        Performance for
                        Existing Volatile
                        Organic Compound
                        Water Separators.
6.27.................  Standards of                10/23/01     66 FR 53661        06/13/79  ...................
                        Performance for
                        Existing Liquid
                        Waste Incinerators.
6.28.................  Standard of                 10/23/01     66 FR 53661        03/18/81  ...................
                        Performance for
                        Existing Hot Air
                        Aluminum
                        Atomization
                        Processes.
6.29.................  Standard of                 10/23/01     66 FR 53661        05/15/91  ...................
                        Performance for
                        Existing Graphic
                        Arts Facilities
                        Using Rotogravure
                        and Flexography.
6.30.................  Standard of                 10/23/01     66 FR 53661        05/15/91  ...................
                        Performance for
                        Existing Factory
                        Surface Coating
                        Operations of Flat
                        Wood Paneling.

6.31.................  Standard of                 10/23/01     66 FR 53661        04/23/96  ...................
                        Performance for
                        Existing
                        Miscellaneous Metal
                        Parts and Products
                        Surface-Coating
                        Operations.
6.32.................  Standard of                 10/23/01     66 FR 53661        05/15/91  ...................
                        Performance for
                        Leaks from Existing
                        Petroleum Refinery
                        Equipment.
6.33.................  Standard of                 10/23/01     66 FR 53661        05/15/91  ...................
                        Performance for
                        Existing
                        Synthesized
                        Pharmaceutical
                        Product
                        Manufacturing
                        Operations.
6.34.................  Standard of                 10/23/01     66 FR 53661        05/15/91  ...................
                        Performance for
                        Existing Pneumatic
                        Rubber Tire
                        Manufacturing
                        Plants.
6.35.................  Standard of                 10/23/01     66 FR 53661        05/15/91  ...................
                        Performance for
                        Existing Fabric,
                        Vinyl and Paper
                        Surface Coating
                        Operations.
6.38.................  Standard of                 10/23/01     66 FR 53661        12/17/86  ...................
                        Performance for
                        Existing Air
                        Oxidation Processes
                        in Synthetic
                        Organic Chemical
                        Manufacturing
                        Industries.
6.39.................  Standard of                 10/23/01     66 FR 53661        07/17/96  ...................
                        Performance for
                        Equipment Leaks of
                        Volatile Organic
                        Compounds in
                        Existing Synthetic
                        Organic Chemical
                        and Polymer
                        Manufacturing
                        Plants.
6.40.................  Standards of                10/23/01     66 FR 53661        08/18/93  ...................
                        Performance for
                        Gasoline Transfer
                        to Motor Vehicles
                        (Stage II Vapor
                        Recovery and
                        Control).
6.42.................  Reasonably Available        10/23/01     66 FR 53661        03/17/99  ...................
                        Control Technology
                        Requirements for
                        Major Volatile
                        Organic Compound-
                        and Nitrogen Oxides-
                        Emitting Facilities.
6.43.................  Volatile Organic            10/23/01     66 FR 53689        05/21/97  ...................
                        Compound Reduction
                        Requirements.
6.45.................  Standards of                10/23/01     66 FR 53689        02/02/94  ...................
                        Performance for
                        Existing Solid
                        Waste Landfills.
6.44.................  Standards of                10/23/01     66 FR 53661        09/20/95  ...................
                        Performance for
                        Existing Commercial
                        Motor Vehicle and
                        Mobile Equipment
                        Refinishing
                        Operations.
6.46.................  Standards of                10/23/01     66 FR 53661        12/21/94  ...................
                        Performance for
                        Existing Ferroalloy
                        and Calcium Carbide
                        Production
                        Facilities.
6.48.................  Standard of                 10/23/01     66 FR 53661        07/19/95  ...................
                        Performance for
                        Existing Bakery
                        Oven Operations.
6.49.................  Standards of                10/23/01     66 FR 53664        06/20/01  ...................
                        Performance for
                        Reactor Processes
                        and Distillation
                        Operations
                        Processes in the
                        Synthetic Organic
                        Chemical
                        Manufacturing
                        Industry.
6.50.................  NOX Requirements for        11/19/02     67 FR 69688        03/20/02  ...................
                        Portland Cement
                        Kilns.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Reg 7--Standards of Performance for New Affected Facilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7.01.................  General Provisions..        10/23/01     66 FR 53661        05/17/00  ...................
7.06.................  Standards of                10/23/01     66 FR 53661        04/21/82  ...................
                        Performance for New
                        Indirect Heat
                        Exchangers.
7.07.................  Standard of                 10/23/01     66 FR 53661        09/15/93  ...................
                        Performance for New
                        Incinerators.
7.08.................  Standards of                10/23/01     66 FR 53661        03/17/99  ...................
                        Performance for New
                        Process Operations.
7.09.................  Standards of                10/23/01     66 FR 53661        06/18/97  ...................
                        Performance for New
                        Process Gas Streams.
7.11.................  Standard of                 10/23/01     66 FR 53661        05/15/91  ...................
                        Performance for New
                        Asphalt Paving
                        Operations.
7.12.................  Standard of                 10/23/01     66 FR 53661        05/15/91  ...................
                        Performance for New
                        Storage Vessels for
                        Volatile Organic
                        Compounds.

7.14.................  Standard of                 10/23/01     66 FR 53661        06/13/79  ...................
                        Performance for
                        Selected New
                        Petroleum Refining
                        Processes and
                        Equipment.
7.15.................  Standards of                10/23/01     66 FR 53662        04/20/88  ...................
                        Performance for
                        Gasoline Transfer
                        to New Service
                        Station Storage
                        Tanks (Stage I
                        Vapor Recovery).
7.18.................  Standards of                10/23/01     66 FR 53662        05/15/91  ...................
                        Performance for New
                        Solvent Metal
                        Cleaning Equipment.
7.20.................  Standard of                 10/23/01     66 FR 53662        11/16/83  ...................
                        Performance for New
                        Gasoline Loading
                        Facilities at Bulk
                        Plants.
7.22.................  Standard of                 10/23/01     66 FR 53662        03/17/93  ...................
                        Performance for New
                        Volatile Organic
                        Materials Loading
                        Facilities.
7.25.................  Standard of                 10/23/01     66 FR 53662        03/17/93  ...................
                        Performance for New
                        Sources Using
                        Volatile Organic
                        Compounds.
7.34.................  Standard of                 10/23/01     66 FR 53662        06/13/79  ...................
                        Performance for New
                        Sulfite Pulp Mills.
7.35.................  Standard of                 10/23/01     66 FR 53662        06/13/79  ...................
                        Performance for New
                        Ethylene Producing
                        Plants.
7.36.................  Standard of                 10/23/01     66 FR 53662        06/13/79  ...................
                        Performance for New
                        Volatile Organic
                        Compound Water
                        Separators.
7.51.................  Standard of                 10/23/01     66 FR 53662        01/20/88  ...................
                        Performance for New
                        Liquid Waste
                        Incinerators.
7.52.................  Standard of                 10/23/01     66 FR 53662        05/15/91  ...................
                        Performance for New
                        Fabric, Vinyl, and
                        Paper Surface
                        Coating Operations.
7.55.................  Standard of                 10/23/01     66 FR 53662        03/17/93  ...................
                        Performance for New
                        Insulation of
                        Magnet Wire.
7.56.................  Standard of                 10/23/01     66 FR 53662        05/15/91  ...................
                        Performance for
                        Leaks from New
                        Petroleum Refinery
                        Equipment.
7.57.................  Standard of                 10/23/01     66 FR 53662        05/15/91  ...................
                        Performance for New
                        Graphic Arts
                        Facilities Using
                        Rotogravure and
                        Flexography.
7.58.................  Standard of                 10/23/01     66 FR 53662        05/15/91  ...................
                        Performance for New
                        Factory Surface
                        Coating Operations
                        of Flat Wood
                        Paneling.
7.59.................  Standard of                 10/23/01     66 FR 53662        04/23/96  ...................
                        Performance for New
                        Miscellaneous Metal
                        Parts and Products
                        Surface Coating
                        Operations.
7.60.................  Standard of                 10/23/01     66 FR 53662        05/15/91  ...................
                        Performance for New
                        Synthesized
                        Pharmaceutical
                        Product
                        Manufacturing
                        Operations.
7.77.................  Standards of                10/23/01     66 FR 53662        10/20/93  ...................
                        Performance for New
                        Blast Furnace
                        Casthouses.
7.79.................  Standards of                10/23/01     66 FR 53690        02/02/94  ...................
                        Performance for New
                        Commercial Motor
                        Vehicles and Mobile
                        Equipment
                        Refinishing
                        Operations.
7.81.................  Standard of                 10/23/01     66 FR 53662        05/17/00  ...................
                        Performance for New
                        or Modified Bakery
                        Oven Operations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Reg 8--Mobile Source Emissions Control
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2012-24096 Filed 10-11-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P