Dicrotophos Minutes Amvac Meeting October 25, 2005 Conference Rm. 1123 Attendees: Jon Wood, Amvac Ian Chart, Amvac PaulVaculin, Amvac Cliff Habig, Exponent Ray Young, NAICC Frank Carter, National Cotton Council Ralph Bagwell, LSU Ag. Center Angus Catchot, MSU Rick Keigwin, EPA/ BEAD Arnet Jones, EPA/ BEAD Tim Kiely, EPA/ BEAD Bill Chism, EPA/ BEAD David Widowsky, EPA/ BEAD Jonathan Angier, EPA/ EFED Tom A. Bailey, EPA/ EFED Dana Spatz, EPA/ EFED Steven Bradbury, EPA/ EFED Debbie Edwards, EPA/ SRRD Amaris Johnson, EPA/ SRRD Summary of Meeting: OPP met with representatives from Amvac, the Cotton Council, entomologists from LSU and MSU, regarding the seasonal maximum application rate of dicrotophos ( Bidrin). Amvac requested the meeting with OPP to discuss the desire for a seasonal maximum application rate of 1.0 lb ai/ A. The Cotton Council and university entomologists believe those two applications at 0.5 lb ai/ A are necessary to control late season Tarnished Plant and Stink Bugs. The cotton experts confirmed that from 2002   2004 there has been an increase in stink and plant bug pressure, leading to a greater need for the high application of dicrotophos in cotton fields. Cotton farmers are now making up to ten applications per season of insecticides. The termination of the boll weevil eradication program and upsurge in growth of Bt Cotton has lead to an increased need for dicrotophos use on cotton.

The Cotton Council and university entomologists agreed that dicrotophos is the most consistently effective pesticide to treat the full spectrum of cotton pests. The price for Bidrin is less than the alternatives making it the preference for many growers. However, the alternatives acephate, methyl parathion, and the neonicitinoids are also effective at treating outbreaks of stink and plant bugs. The cotton experts were in agreement that growers would reserve the maximum single application rate of dicrotophos for late season flare ups of stink and plant bugs, while using the alternative insecticides for the early season to treat aphids, thrips, and fleahoppers.

The Agency's scientists inquired about a 14 day reapplication interval that should decrease exposure to birds. The university entomologists stated that a 14 day reapplication interval should be effective for treating late season plant and stink bugs.

EPA agreed to review the new use information submitted by Amvac, and follow up with a response on the request for two late season applications at the maximum single application rate of 0.5 lb ai/ A.


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON D. C., 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES PC # 073301 Reregistration Case # 4049 DP Barcode D303568 February 23 , 2005 MEMORANDUM Subject: Sodium Chlorate ( CAS Reg. # 7775 09 9) Amendment to the Drinking Water Assessment Requested by the Health and Effects Division From: Silvia C. Termes, Chemist ( ERB III) and James A. Hetrick, Senior Scientist ( ERB I) Environmental Fate and Effects Division ( 7507C)

and Henry P. Nelson, Senior Scientist Office of Science Coordination and Policy OPPTS To: Rossana Louie Reregistration Division and Bonnie Cropp Kohlli Health and Effects Division Through: Daniel Rieder, Branch Chief ERB III Environmental Fate and Effects Division This Memorandum contains the additional language for the Drinking Water Assessment, as requested by the Health and Effects Division in the meeting dated February 3rd, 2005.

A Drinking Water Assessment for Sodium Chlorate was submitted on 01/ 05/ 2005 ( DP Barcode D303556).  2

Sodium Chlorate Sodium chlorate is used as a desiccant/ defoliant because it is a strong oxidizer. As a strong oxidizing agent, chlorate ( ClO 3 , oxidation state V) gets reduced to chlorine species in lower oxidation states, such as the oxyanions chlorite ( ClO 2 , oxidation state III) and hypochlorite ( ClO, oxidation state I), chlorine dioxide ( oxidation state IV), and chloride ( oxidation state  I). Thus, at least some and possibly substantial reduction of the applied chlorate is likely to occur in the field prior to any runoff to surface water. The FIRST estimated exposure concentration in surface water represents a very conservative value because it assumes that all of the chlorinecontaining chemical species entering the natural water body is in the form of chlorate without any reduction. Morever, for these estimates it was assumed that chlorate was persistent in soil and water sediments under aerobic conditions, persistent in abiotic aquatic media, persistent towards direct photolysis in water, and that it does not bind to soil. That is, it was assumed that none of the chlorate was reduced in the field prior to runoff or subsequently reduced in the water body.

Under environmental ( terrestrial field) redox conditions and based on chemical equilibria alone, the thermodynamically favored, end reduction product of chlorate in soil and in water is the chloride anion. Any intermediate chlorine dioxide that may form under environmental conditions will undergo photochemical reactions when exposed to sunlight. The chlorine oxyanions chlorite and hypochlorite ( other possible more reduced intermediates in the ultimate reduction of chlorate to chloride) are strong oxidizers in themselves and thus, they are also reduced and/ or undergo disproportionation reactions. Although reduction reactions of chlorate, chlorite, and hypochlorite are said to occur " very fast", how fast they occur is not known ( i. e., the actual rate constants in the environment are not known). Therefore, at any given time the distribution of reduced species ( type and concentration) cannot be estimated. However, it is unlikely that a single reduced species would be present.

The additional exposure concentrations estimates for chlorite and hypochlorite are also conservative because they are based on the assumptions that all chlorate had been reduced completely to either chlorite or hypochlorite, and furthermore that none of the chlorite or hypochlorite had been reduced.


[Federal Register: June 18, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 116)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 33400-33401]
[DOCID:fr18jn07-10]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2006-0930; A-1-FRL-8327-9]

Approval of Implementation Plan; Connecticut; Commitment to
Submit Mid-Course Review

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of commitment fulfillment.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the State of Connecticut has
fulfilled the enforceable commitments it made to EPA to complete a mid-
course review (MCR) assessing whether two one-hour ozone nonattainment
areas are, or are not, making sufficient progress toward attainment of
the one-hour ozone standard under the Clean Air Act (CAA). The two
areas are the Connecticut portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-
Long Island 1-hour ozone nonattainment area, and the Greater
Connecticut 1-hour ozone nonattainment area. EPA has reviewed the MCR
documents submitted by Connecticut and has determined that Connecticut
has met the commitment to perform these MCRs. EPA has sent a letter to
Connecticut finding that their MCRs fulfill the commitment made by
Connecticut in their 1-hour ozone attainment demonstrations.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R01-OAR-2006-0930. All documents in the docket
are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the

index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically through
http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Office of Ecosystem

Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England
Regional Office, One Congress Street, Suite 1100, Boston, MA. EPA
requests that if at all possible, you contact the contact 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 legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard P. Burkhart, Air Quality
Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England
Regional Office, One Congress Street, Suite 1100 (CAQ), Boston, MA
02114-2023, telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

    EPA's findings letter and Technical support Document (TSD) and the
State's mid-course review (MCR) submittal are available at the Regional
Office, which is identified in the ADDRESSES section above.

II. Further Information

A. Background

    EPA's 1996 modeling guidance \1\ recognized the need to perform a
MCR as a means for addressing uncertainty in the modeling results. In
its December 16, 1999 proposed rulemakings on the 1-hour ozone
attainment demonstrations for ten ozone nonattainment areas (see one
example at 64 FR 70348), EPA stated that because of the uncertainty in
long-term projections, an attainment demonstration that relies on
weight of evidence needs to contain provisions for periodic review of
monitoring, emissions, and modeling data to assess the extent to which
refinements to emission control measures are needed. In those December
16, 1999 proposed rulemakings, EPA set forth its framework for
reviewing and processing 1-hour ozone attainment demonstrations and one
element of that framework was a commitment for a MCR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ U.S. EPA (1996), Guidance on Use of Modeled Results to
Demonstrate Attainment of the Ozone NAAQS, EPA-454/B-957-007, (June
1996), Web site: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/ (file name:

``O3TEST'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A MCR provides an opportunity for the state and EPA to assess if a
nonattainment area is, or is not, making sufficient progress toward
attainment of the one-hour ozone standard. The MCR should utilize air
quality monitoring and other data to assess whether the control
measures relied on in a SIP's attainment demonstration have resulted in
adequate improvement of the ozone air quality. The EPA believes that a
MCR is a critical element in any attainment demonstration that employs
a long-term projection period and relies on a weight-of-evidence test.
The commitment to perform a MCR was required before EPA would approve
most 1-hour ozone attainment demonstrations. Moreover, even though the
1-hour ozone standard has been revoked by EPA (70 FR 44470, June 15,
2005), the anti-backsliding provisions of EPA's 8-hour ozone
implementation rule (69 FR 23951, April 30, 2004) continue to require
areas with outstanding commitments to perform a 1-hour MCR to do so.
    The two 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas in Connecticut that are
the subject of this notice are the Connecticut portion of the New York-
Northern New Jersey-Long Island ozone nonattainment area and the
Greater Connecticut 1-hour ozone nonattainment area. The one-hour
attainment demonstration for the Connecticut portion of the New York-
Northern New Jersey-Long Island ozone nonattainment area, with the
commitment to perform a MCR, was approved in 66 FR 63921, published on
December 11, 2001. This area also had an emissions shortfall.
Connecticut adopted additional control measures to fill this shortfall.
EPA approved these measures as fulfilling the shortfall in a previous
rulemaking. See 71 FR 51761 (August 31, 2006). The one-hour attainment
demonstration for the Greater Connecticut 1-hour ozone nonattainment
area, with the commitment to perform a MCR, was approved in 66 FR 634,
published on January 3, 2001.

B. MCR Guidance

    On March 28, 2002, EPA issued a memorandum entitled ``Mid-Course
Review Guidance for the 1-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Areas that Rely on
Weight-of-Evidence for Attainment Demonstration.'' Attached to that
memorandum is a technical guidance document dated January 2002 entitled
``Recommended Approach For Performing Mid-course Review of SIP's To
Meet the 1-hour NAAQS for Ozone.'' http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/memoranda/policymem33d.pdf
.

    The technical guidance contains three basic steps: (1) Perform an
administrative test (e.g., demonstrate whether the appropriate emission
limits were adopted and implemented); (2) analyze available air
quality, meteorology, emissions and modeling data and document
findings; and (3) document conclusions regarding whether progress
toward attainment is being made using a weight of evidence
determination (which may or may not include new modeling analyses).

C. Review of MCR Submittals from Connecticut

    EPA reviewed the MCR documents Connecticut submitted for the two
areas in Connecticut required to submit an MCR. The review compared the
MCRs with EPA guidance. EPA concluded that the two MCRs meet EPA
guidance and fulfill the commitment Connecticut made in their one-hour
attainment demonstrations. Specifically, both of Connecticut's MCRs
include an emission reduction regulation review, as well as a trend
analysis and air quality monitoring data. A TSD with more detail on
Connecticut's MCRs and EPA's review of these MCRs has been prepared and
is available from EPA at the address provided in the ADDRESSES section
above.

III. Final Action

    EPA has reviewed the MCR documents submitted by Connecticut and has
determined that Connecticut has adequately met its commitment to
perform a MCR. This action is being taken for the following one-hour
ozone nonattainment areas: The Connecticut portion of the New York-
Northern New Jersey-Long Island ozone nonattainment area; and the
Greater Connecticut 1-hour ozone nonattainment area.
    EPA has sent a letter to Connecticut finding that their MCRs
fulfill the commitment made by Connecticut in their 1-hour ozone
attainment demonstrations. A copy of this letter is available from EPA
at the address provided in the ADDRESSES section above.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely approves a state commitment as meeting federal requirements and
imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this action will not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this finding approves pre-existing requirements under state law and
does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
    This action also does not have tribal implications because it will
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have federalism
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64
FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely approves a state
commitment as meeting a federal standard, and does not alter the
relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities
established in the Clean Air Act. This action also is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because
it is not economically significant.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, as well as submission of reports that
fulfill a state commitment, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State
to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to
disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, as well as submission of reports that fulfill a state
commitment, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This action does not
impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: June 6, 2007.
Robert W. Varney,
Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
 [FR Doc. E7-11690 Filed 6-15-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 187 (Thursday, September 28, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 66690-66692]
[FR Doc No: 2023-21255]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2021-0752; FRL-9203-02-R10]

Air Plan Approval; WA; Yakima County Outdoor and Agricultural
Burning Rule Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving into
the Washington State Implementation Plan (SIP) the Yakima Regional
Clean Air Agency's (YRCAA) revised outdoor and agricultural burning
rule submitted by the State of Washington (Washington or the State) on
October 14, 2021. The submitted revisions improve stringency, clarity
and enforceability of the rule. The EPA is proposing to approve the SIP
submission as consistent with Clean Air Act (Act or CAA) requirements.

DATES: This action is effective on October 30, 2023.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R10-OAR-2021-0752. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available through https://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional availability
information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Claudia Vaupel, EPA Region 10 at (206)
553-6121, or [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, it means the EPA.

I. Background

    On July 26, 2023, the EPA proposed to approve Washington's October
14, 2021, SIP submission which significantly revised the SIP-approved
outdoor burning rule for the Yakima area (88 FR 48147). The reasons for
our proposed approval were stated in the proposed rulemaking and will
not be re-stated here. The public comment period for our proposed
approval ended on August 25, 2023, and we did not receive comments.
Therefore, we are finalizing our action as proposed.

II. Final Action

    The EPA is approving into the Washington SIP, the rule revisions
for outdoor and agricultural burning submitted by Washington on October
14, 2021, because they meet Clean Air Act requirements. The rule
revisions include updates to applicability, general prohibitions and
requirements for all burning, permit requirements and limited
exemptions, program delegation, and rule renumbering. Based on our
review, we determined that the rule revisions result in an overall
strengthening of the requirements for open and agricultural burning in
Yakima County.
    The EPA is approving into the federally-approved SIP the YRCAA
Regulation 1, Article 3, Section 3.03 (regulating outdoor and
agricultural burning in Yakima County), effective September 9, 2020,
except the following provisions: 3.03.C.2.g, 3.03.E.2.a, 3.03.E.2.c,
3.03.E.3.d, 3.03.K; and the following general rule permit provisions:

    General Rule Permit No. 3.03-1 Conditions: E.2.b, E.2.d, E.2.e,
and G;
    General Rule Permit No. 3.03-2 Conditions: E.2.b and G;
    General Rule Permit No. 3.03-3 Conditions: E.2.b and G;
    General Rule Permit No. 3.03-4 Conditions: E.2.c and G; and
    General Rule Permit No. 3.03-5 Conditions E.2.d and G.

    We are also removing from the federally-approved SIP the outdated
Regulation 1, Article 5 provisions, Sections 5.01 through 5.05
(regulating outdoor burning in Yakima County), state effective December
15, 1995, that are replaced by Section 3.03.

III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that
includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of
1 CFR 51.5, we are finalizing the incorporation by reference of
Regulation 1, Article 3, Section 3.03 provisions described in section
II of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these
materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the
EPA Region 10 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more
information). Therefore, these materials have been approved by the EPA
for inclusion in the State implementation plan, have been incorporated
by reference by the EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable
under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the
final rule of the EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference
in the next update to the SIP compilation. The EPA is also removing
regulatory text that includes incorporation by

reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is
removing from incorporation by reference the Regulation 1, Article 5,
Sections 5.01 through 5.05 provisions described in section II of this
preamble.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 14094 (88 FR 21879, April 11, 2023);
     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 subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) because it approves a state program;
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
     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 Clean Air Act.
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and it will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000).
    Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects'' of their actions on minority populations and low-income
populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law.
The EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as ``the fair treatment and
meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income with respect to the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies.'' The EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean
that ``no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of
environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the
negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and
commercial operations or programs and policies.''
    Neither Washington nor YRCAA evaluated environmental justice
considerations as part of the SIP submittal; the CAA and applicable
implementing regulations neither prohibit nor require such an
evaluation. The EPA performed an environmental justice analysis for the
purpose of providing additional context and information about this
rulemaking to the public, not as a basis of the action. Due to the
nature of the action being taken here, this action is expected to have
a neutral to positive impact on the air quality of the affected area.
In addition, there is no information in the record upon which this
decision is based inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of
achieving environmental justice for people of color, low-income
populations, and Indigenous peoples.
    This action is subject to the Congressional Review Act, and EPA
will submit a rule report to each House of the Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United States. 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 November 27, 2023. 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, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

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

    Dated: September 22, 2023.
Casey Sixkiller,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is
amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart WW--Washington

0
2. In Sec.  52.2470, amend Table 10 in paragraph (c) by:
0
a. Adding the entry ``3.03'' in numerical order under the heading
``Article 3--Rules''; and
0
b. Removing the heading ``Article V--Emissions Standards and
Preventative Measures'' and the entries ``5.01'', ``5.02'', ``5.03'',
``5.04'', and ``5.05''.
    The addition reads as follows:

Sec.  52.2470  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

     Table 10--Additional Regulations Approved for the Yakima Regional Clean Air Agency (YRCAA) Jurisdiction
 [Applicable in Yakima county, excluding facilities subject to Energy Facilities Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC)
  jurisdiction; facilities subject to the Washington Department of Ecology's direct jurisdiction under Chapters
  173-405, 173-410, and 173-415 Washington Administrative Code (WAC); Indian reservations; any other area where
  the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction; and the Prevention of Significant
     Deterioration (PSD) permitting of facilities subject to the applicability sections of WAC 173-400-700.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       State/local
      State/local citation          Title/subject    effective date   EPA approval date        Explanations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Yakima Regional Clean Air Agency Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Article 3--Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
3.03...........................  Outdoor and                 9/9/20  9/28/23, [INSERT    Except subsection
                                  Agricultural                        FEDERAL REGISTER    3.03.C.2.g, 3.03.E.2a,
                                  Burning.                            CITATION].          3.03.E.2.c,
                                                                                3.03.E.3.d, 3.03.K;
                                                                                and the following
                                                                                provisions in General
                                                                                Rule Permit No.: 3.03-
                                                                                1.E.2.b, 3.03-1.E.2.d,
                                                                                3.03-1.E.2.e, 3.03-
                                                                                1.G, 3.03-2.E.2.b,
                                                                                3.03-2.G, 3.03-
                                                                                3.E.2.b, 3.03-3.G,
                                                                                3.03-4.E.2.c, 3.03-
                                                                                4.G, 3.03-5.E.2.d, and
                                                                                3.03-5.G.

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2023-21255 Filed 9-27-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: September 1, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 169)]
[Notices]
[Page 53725-53727]
[DOCID:fr01se10-110]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-62775; File No. SR-PHLX-2010-115]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Amendment to Rule
862 Relating to, Among Other Things, Eliminate Broker Discretionary
Voting for All Elections of Directors, Except for Companies Registered
Under the Investment Company Act of 1940

August 26, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 \2\ thereunder, notice is hereby given
that on August 18, 2010, NASDAQ OMX PHLX, Inc. (``PHLX'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II, below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange
filed the proposal as a ``non-controversial'' proposed rule change
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\4\ The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange, pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Act \5\ and Rule
19b-4 thereunder,\6\ proposes to amend PHLX Rule 862 (Proxies at
Direction of Owner) to comport with the Chicago Board Options Exchange
(``CBOE'') Rule 31.85(b) and the New York Stock Exchange (``NYSE'')
Rule 452 to eliminate broker discretionary voting for all elections of
directors at shareholder meetings, whether contested or not, except for
companies registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the
``1940 Act''),\7\ to amend PHLX Rule 862 to preclude broker
discretionary voting on a matter that materially amends an investment
advisory contract with an investment company, and to define that a
material amendment to an investment advisory contract would include any
proposal to obtain shareholder approval of an investment company's
investment advisory contract with a new investment advisor. In
addition, including the changes noted above, this proposal reorganizes
the broker voting rules to specifically include 20 instances where
member organizations may not vote without customer instructions, while
retaining the prohibition that the member organization may not vote
without instructions from the customer on matters that may
substantially affect the rights and privileges of the stockholders.
This proposal also clarifies proxy procedures and proxy record
retention.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \6\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \7\ The Commission notes that the exception for companies
registered under the 1940 Act only apply to uncontested director
elections, i.e., when there is no counter solicitation. See proposed
Phlx Rule 862(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site at http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/micro.aspx?id=PHLXRulefilings,
at the principal office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    PHLX Rule 862 provides instructions on how the proxies are voted.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend PHLX Rule 862(2) to
comport with CBOE Rule 31.85(b) and NYSE Rule 452 to eliminate broker
discretionary voting for all elections of directors at shareholder
meetings, whether contested or not, except for companies registered
under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the ``1940 Act''), to amend
PHLX Rule 862 to preclude broker discretionary voting on a matter that
materially amends an investment advisory contract with an investment
company, and to define that a material amendment to an investment
advisory contract would include any proposal to obtain shareholder
approval of an investment company's investment advisory contract with a
new investment advisor. In addition, including the changes noted above,
this proposal reorganizes the broker voting rules to specifically
include 20 instances where member organizations may not vote without
customer instructions, while retaining the prohibition that the member
organization may not vote without instructions from the customer on
matters that may substantially affect the rights and privileges of the
stockholders. This proposal also clarifies proxy procedures and proxy
record retention.
    The proposed amendment does not materially change the proxy rules
with the exception of the changes made in this filing. Amending PHLX
Rule 862 to comport with CBOE Rule 31.85 (b) and NYSE Rule 452 provides
consistency among the exchanges to eliminate disparities regarding
proxy voting. The Exchange proposes this amendment in response to a
request by the Securities and Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'')
that self-regulatory organizations have uniform proxy rules regarding
broker discretionary voting.\8\ As a result, PHLX believes the broker
discretionary voting amendments will have little impact on the market
participants since the changes are in line with the rules of the other
self-regulatory organizations as defined within the meaning of Section
3(a)(26)

of the Act \9\ (otherwise known as ``SROs''). PHLX members with
customers are also members of one of the other SROs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See NYSE Approval Order, 74 FR at 33298, Commission Release
No. 34-60215 (July 1, 2009), note 69.
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(26).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \10\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \11\ in particular, in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general to protect investors and the public
interest. Specifically, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule
change will protect investors and the public interest by ensuring
better corporate governance and transparency of the election process
for directors and by promoting greater uniformity with the proxy rules
of other SROs. In particular, for Exchange member organizations that
are also member firms of other SROs, confusion might arise as to which
SROs' proxy voting rules are applicable to a company listed on the
Exchange if there are disparities between the rules of the Exchange and
the other SROs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposal should further the protection of investors and the
public interest by assuring that voting on matters as critical as the
election of directors can no longer be determined by member
organizations without specific instructions from the beneficial owner,
and thus should enhance corporate governance and accountability to
shareholders. Additionally, other changes enhance the proxy rules by
providing clarity to proxy handling and record retention matters which
also improves the protection to the investors.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \12\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) \13\ thereunder
because the proposal does not: (i) Significantly affect the protection
of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden
on competition; and (iii) by its terms, become operative for 30 days
from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors
and the public interest, provided that the Exchange has given the
Commission notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \14\ The Exchange has satisfied the five business day pre-filing
requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally may
not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing.
However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \15\ permits the Commission to designate
a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. The Exchange has requested that the
Commission waive the 30-day operative delay period. In making this
request, the Exchange noted that waiver of the 30-day operative delay
will conform to the Commission's desire to eliminate any disparities
with proxy voting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the waiver of the 30-day operative
delay period is consistent with the protection of investors and the
public interest.\16\ The proposal would permit the Exchange to comply
with the Commission's stated goal that self-regulatory organizations
who currently allow members to use discretionary voting for director
elections conform their rules to the NYSE's rules to eliminate any
voting disparities depending on where the shares are held.\17\ In this
regard, Phlx's proposed changes to Rule 862 are substantively similar
to NYSE Rule 452 and CBOE Rule 31.85. Further, the proposal would
conform the Exchange's rule to the NYSE's rule with respect to voting
on investment advisory contracts. Moreover, the Commission notes that
the NYSE's adopted rule changes were subject to full notice and
comment, and considered and approved by the Commission.\18\ Finally,
the Commission notes that the clarification of proxy procedures, record
retention, and other changes to Phlx Rule 862 are based substantially
on CBOE's rules. Based on the above, the Commission finds that waiving
the 30-day operative delay period is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, and the proposal is therefore deemed
operative upon filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ For purposes only of waiving the operative delay for this
proposal, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact
on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
    \17\ See supra note 8.
    \18\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-PHLX-2010-115 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-PHLX-2010-115. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written

communications relating to the proposed rule change between the
Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from
the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official
business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-PHLX-2010-115 and should be submitted on or before
September 22, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\20\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-21849 Filed 8-31-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P