[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 53 (Friday, March 18, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15006-15007]
[FR Doc No: 2011-6364]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

Extension:
    Rule 17f-7; SEC File No. 270-470; OMB Control No. 3235-0529.

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collections
of information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit these
existing collections of information to the Office of Management and
Budget (``OMB'') for extension and approval.
    Rule 17f-7 (17 CFR 270.17f-7) permits funds to maintain their
assets in

foreign securities depositories based on conditions that reflect the
operations and role of these depositories.\1\ Rule 17f-7 contains some
``collection of information'' requirements. An eligible securities
depository has to meet minimum standards for a depository. The fund or
its investment adviser generally determines whether the depository
complies with those requirements based on information provided by the
fund's primary custodian (a bank that acts as global custodian). The
depository custody arrangement has to meet certain risk limiting
requirements. The fund can obtain indemnification or insurance
arrangements that adequately protect the fund against custody risks.
The fund or its investment adviser generally determines whether
indemnification or insurance provisions are adequate. If the fund does
not rely on indemnification or insurance, the fund's contract with its
primary custodian is required to state that the custodian will provide
to the fund or its investment adviser a custody risk analysis of each
depository, monitor risks on a continuous basis, and promptly notify
the fund or its adviser of material changes in risks. The primary
custodian and other custodians also are required to agree to exercise
reasonable care.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Custody of Investment Company Assets Outside the United
States, Investment Company Act Release No. IC-23815 (April 29, 1999)
(64 FR 24489 (May 6, 1999)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The collection of information requirements in rule 17f-7 are
intended to provide workable standards that protect funds from the
risks of using securities depositories while assigning appropriate
responsibilities to the fund's primary custodian and investment adviser
based on their capabilities. The requirement that the depository meet
specified minimum standards is intended to ensure that the depository
is subject to basic safeguards deemed appropriate for all depositories.
The requirement that the custody contract state that the fund's primary
custodian will provide an analysis of the custody risks of depository
arrangements, monitor the risks, and report on material changes is
intended to provide essential information about custody risks to the
fund's investment adviser as necessary for it to approve the continued
use of the depository. The requirement that the primary custodian agree
to exercise reasonable care is intended to provide assurances that its
services and the information it provides will meet an appropriate
standard of care. The alternative requirement that the funds obtain
adequate indemnification or insurance against the custody risks of
depository arrangements is intended to provide another, potentially
less burdensome means to protect assets held in depository
arrangements.
    The staff estimates that each of approximately 836 investment
advisers \2\ will make an average of 8 responses annually under the
rule to address depository compliance with minimum requirements, any
indemnification or insurance arrangements, and reviews of risk analyses
or notifications. The staff estimates each response will take 6 hours,
requiring a total of approximately 48 hours for each adviser. The total
annual burden associated with these requirements of the rule will be
approximately 40,128 hours (836 advisers x 48 hours per adviser). The
staff further estimates that during each year, each of approximately 15
global custodians will make an average of 4 responses to analyze
custody risks and provide notice of any material changes to custody
risk under the rule. The staff estimates that each response will take
260 hours, requiring approximately 1040 hours annually per
custodian.\3\ The total annual burden associated with these
requirements is approximately 15,600 hours (15 custodians x 1040
hours). Therefore, the staff estimates that the total annual burden
associated with all collection of information requirements of the rule
is 55,728 hours (40,128 + 15,600). The total annual cost of burden
hours is estimated to be $14,948,736 (40,128 x $287 for a portfolio
manager, plus 15,600 hours x $220/hour for a trust administrator's
time).\4\ The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the
purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act. The estimate is not derived
from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the
costs of Commission rules and forms. Compliance with the collection of
information requirements of the rule is necessary to obtain the benefit
of relying on the rule's permission for funds to maintain their assets
in foreign custodians.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ At the start of 2011, 836 investment advisers managed or
sponsored open-end (including ETFs) portfolios and closed-end
registered funds.
    \3\ These estimates are based on conversations with
representatives of the fund industry.
    \4\ The salaries for a portfolio manager and a trust
administrator are from SIFMA's Management & Professional Earnings in
the Securities Industry 2010, modified to account for an 1800-hour
work-year and multiplied by 5.35 to account for bonuses, firm size,
employee benefits and overhead.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information has practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of
the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques or other
forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to
comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this
publication.
    Please direct your written comments to Thomas Bayer, Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312; or send an
e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: March 15, 2011.
Cathy H. Ahn,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-6364 Filed 3-17-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


expected to spend 1 hour, on average, reading this letter or guidance. Systems serving more than
10,000 people are assumed to read both the regulation and information from the State, requiring
on average 4 hours. National costs are estimated by multiplying the average burden hours by the
average system labor rate, times the number of systems affected. This reading burden was
assumed for each UCMR component. Small systems (those serving 10,000 or fewer) were only
selected for one component of UCMR. All large systems (those serving 10,001 to 100,000) are
subject to Assessment Monitoring, with a subset of these systems subject to the Screening
Survey. Very large systems (those serving more than 100,000) are subject to both Assessment
Monitoring and the Screening Survey. Thus, reading burden for any one small system was
estimated to be 1 hour; 4 (Assessment Monitoring only) or 8 hours (Assessment Monitoring and
Screening Survey monitoring) for large systems; and 8 hours for very large systems.
6(a)(i)(b) Monitoring Burden
For Assessment Monitoring, it is assumed that all participating systems would collect
samples during January 2008 through December 2010, with approximately one-third of systems
involved during each of the years. Thus, only one-third of all systems required to conduct
UCMR 2 monitoring are assumed to monitor during the ICR period of 2010 - 2012. The other
two-thirds of participating systems would have conducted monitoring during 2008 and 2009,
which was accounted for in the previous UCMR 2 ICR period of 2007-2009. See Exhibit 5,
above, for an illustration of the time line for system sampling activity. For both Assessment

Information Collection Request for UCMR 2
November 2009
28
Monitoring and the Screening Survey, EPA assumes that each system will incur an estimated
burden of 0.5 hours per sampling point to collect chemical samples for analysis. This monitoring
burden includes receipt of monitoring kit, reading laboratory instructions, and collection and
shipping of samples. It is calculated by: (hour burden per sampling point) times (number of
sampling points) times (number of systems) times (number of sample events per year). Many
ground water systems may realize savings in their sampling burden as a result of the allowance
to sample at representative EPTDSs. Thus, sampling burden is calculated to account for the
estimated reduction in entry points where these systems will sample (as described below in
section 6(a)(ii), Part A of this ICR document).
6(a)(i)(c) Reporting and Recordkeeping
Under UCMR 2, regulated systems are required to report specific information prior to
monitoring, and with their monitoring results.
Reporting Prior to Monitoring - As with the reading burden (described above, in Section
6(a)(i)(a)), all initial reporting prior to UCMR 2 monitoring (including proposals for
representative EPTDSs) is considered to be complete, and not part of the applicable ICR
period of 2010-2012. The initial reporting burden was accounted for in the first UCMR 2
ICR period of 2007-2009, and is included in Appendix B, which presents costs for the
entire UCMR 2 cycle (2007-2011).
Small systems: EPA assumed that small systems only needed to send and confirm
contact information prior to monitoring. These systems were allotted a one-time
reporting burden of 2 hours.
Large surface water (and GWUDI) systems: EPA assumed that large surface
water/GWUDI systems would send contact and sampling point information, and
were allotted a one-time reporting burden of 6 hours.
Large ground water systems: EPA assumed that large ground water systems
would send contact and sampling point information, which would require a one-
time burden of 6 hours. An additional 8 hours were allotted to some ground water
systems to account for compilation and submission of representative EPTDS
proposal. Since it was unlikely that all systems would submit these proposals,
EPA conservatively assumed that half of ground water systems serving 10,001 to
100,000 people would compile and submit this proposal; and assumes that all
ground water systems serving more than 100,000 people would do so.
Reporting with Monitoring Results
Small systems: Small systems can choose whether to review their UCMR
monitoring results. Because EPA is paying for and coordinating laboratory
analyses, small systems are not required to review and approve their analytical
results. Some systems may choose not to review at all, while others may review in
detail. However, as a conservative assumption, small systems are each allotted 0.5
hours per sampling period for data review.

Information Collection Request for UCMR 2
November 2009
29
Large systems: UCMR 2 clarified that large systems must review, approve, and
submit the data to the State and EPA via the EPA electronic reporting system.
EPA estimates that these systems will spend 2 hours per sampling period on this
activity.
6(a)(i)(d) Public Notification
Systems are required to notify their users of the detection of any unregulated chemicals.
Specifically, UCMR monitoring results will be reported by CWSs through the CCRs (63 FR
44512 (August 19, 1998)). Both CWSs and NTNCWSs must report any failure to monitor for
unregulated contaminants required through UCMR under the Public Notification Rule (64 FR
25964 (May 13, 1999)). Therefore, no additional public notification burden is assumed under
UCMR.
6(a)(ii) Estimating Non-labor Costs
Under UCMR, small systems will only incur labor costs. By design of the rule, EPA
assumes all laboratory and shipping costs for systems in the national representative sample of
small systems. Thus, the laboratory fee and shipping cost estimates described here are the basis
for EPA and large system non-labor costs.
The most significant cost associated with the implementation of UCMR is the cost of
laboratory services for contaminant analysis. Exhibit 7 provides estimates of laboratory
analytical costs associated with the analysis of each sample. These methods are comparatively
new (with the exception of Method 525.2 for the parent acetanilides), and will not coincide with
other compliance monitoring. EPA estimates of laboratory fees are based on consultations with
national drinking water laboratories and costs of analytical methods similar to those that will be
used for UCMR 2. Following publication of the 2007-2009 ICR and proposed UCMR 2 rule,
EPA received several public comments expressing that estimated laboratory fees were too low.
In response to comments, EPA revisited the estimates of UCMR 2 method pricing. EPA
approached three additional national drinking water laboratories (different than those consulted
previously) and requested pricing estimates for UCMR 2 methods. EPA incorporated the average
of the pricing estimates from the laboratories that were consulted. In addition to the newly
estimated laboratory fees, perchlorate was removed from the final List 1 Assessment Monitoring
based on public comment on the proposed UCMR 2. The analytical cost estimates for the final
rule were adjusted from $1,225 per sample set (including both List 1 and 2 contaminants and
excludes perchlorate analysis) to $1,305, an increase of $80 per sample set. For systems serving
10,000 or fewer people, EPA pays for the costs for shipping and laboratory analysis.

Information Collection Request for UCMR 2
November 2009
30
Exhibit 7: Analytical Method Cost Estimates
Contaminant/Contaminant Group
Cost
List 1 – Assessment Monitoring
EPA Method 527 - Gas Chromatography (GC)/Mass Spectrometry (MS) (for 7 contaminants)........
EPA Method 529 - Explosives (for 3 contaminants)...........................................................................
$220
$215
Total
$435
List 2 - Screening Survey Monitoring
EPA Method 521 - Nitrosamines (for 6 contaminants) .......................................................................
EPA Method 535 - Acetanilides (for 6 contaminants)  .......................................................................
EPA Method 525.2 - Acetanilide parents (for 3 contaminants)...........................................................
$310
$370
$190
Total
$870
UCMR 2 specifies that all samples be collected at EPTDSs. Some large systems that use
ground water sources and have multiple EPTDSs may be able to realize significant savings by
sampling representative entry point(s) rather than at each EPTDS. Systems can do this if: they
meet certain system configuration criteria; submit a proposal regarding representative entry
points; and receive approval from EPA or the State. Labor related to submission and
coordination of these proposals is discussed above in section 6(a)(i)(c), Part A of this ICR
document. To account for the savings on laboratory fees that will be realized by large ground
water systems, EPA assumed that effectively 75 percent of the current EPTDSs will be sampled
at systems serving 10,001 to 100,000 people, and 50 percent of EPTDSs will be sampled at
ground water systems that serve more than 100,000 people.
In addition to EPTDS samples, systems that are required to conduct Screening Survey
sampling, and are subject to the distribution system sampling requirements of the DBPR, are
required to also sample for nitrosamines at the point of DSMRT. Thus, large systems that are
required to collect samples at both locations will incur additional costs for laboratory fees for the
nitrosamine analyses. All surface water/GWUDI systems are assumed to disinfect, and thus have
one DSMRT sampling point per treatment plant (surface water/GWUDI systems had an average
number of 1 to 2 treatment plants per system). In contrast, ground water systems are estimated to
disinfect at between 65 to 96 percent of their treatment plants (number of treatment plants ranged
from 1 to 7), depending on system size. These percentages were multiplied by the average
number of treatment plants to estimate the number of DSMRT samples collected by large ground
water systems.
Shipping fees were calculated per required sample. Following publication of the proposed
rule, EPA received several public comments expressing that shipping fee estimates were too low.
Based on these comments, EPA revisited key shipping company pricing lists to ensure that
shipping cost assumptions were as accurate and current as possible. Estimated shipping costs
were based on the average cost of shipping a 15-pound package overnight; plus a ground
shipment of the empty package which is sent to the PWSs prior to their required sampling.
Specifically, EPA approximated that, for each sampling point, a package of empty sample bottles
is shipped via ground transportation to the system; estimated at $7.50 per package. Following
sample collection, the system sends the package with full bottles via overnight air back to the

Information Collection Request for UCMR 2
November 2009
31
laboratory. To estimate the cost of this overnight shipment, EPA applied the approximate cost of
shipping a 15-pound package across an average number of shipping zones at $68.50. Thus,
shipping cost for a large or very large PWS is estimated at $76 per sample set (again, small
system laboratory and shipping costs are paid for by EPA). Shipping costs were estimated based
on pricing information posted on: http://www.fedex.com/ and http://www.ups.com/; accessed
March 2006. For small systems, shipping includes the cost for one extra ground trip, for sending
the empty bottles from the laboratory to the sampling coordinator, so that the sampling kit can be
reused. Thus, shipping cost for a small PWS is estimated at $83.50 per sample set.
Total laboratory and shipping fees were estimated per required sampling location
(accounting for both the representative EPTDS allowance, and the additional DSMRT samples,
as described above), per sampling event. Thus, the cost per sample was calculated as follows:
(number systems) times (number of periods per year) times (number of sampling points per
system) times (method and shipping costs).
6(a)(iii) Summary of Labor and Non-labor Costs to Public Water Systems
Exhibit 8a displays a summary of labor and non-labor costs, by year, for the three-year
ICR period. As previously noted, the UCMR 2 cycle is 2007-2011, and all participating systems
are collecting samples between January 2008 and December 2010, thus the ICR period of 2010-
2012 coincides with only one year of UCMR 2 monitoring, and just two years of program
implementation. Information presenting estimated costs over the five-year UCMR 2
implementation period is provided in Exhibit B-1a, in Appendix B. Small systems incur labor
costs only. Large systems incur both labor and non-labor costs, as they are responsible for
analytical costs.
The nationwide cost to systems for implementing the total UCMR program over the
three-year ICR period of 2010-2012 is estimated to be $9.2 million. Large and very large
systems are expected to incur about 99 percent of this cost, $9.1 million. Annual cost per small
system for UCMR implementation over the three-year ICR period is estimated to be $44 per
system, all attributed to labor. Annual cost per large system is estimated to be $114 for labor plus
$1,747 for analytical (non-labor) costs; with very large systems costs of $369 for labor plus
$7,260 for analytical (non-labor) costs. Exhibits 4 and 5 illustrate numbers of systems
participating and timing of monitoring. Per system labor burdens and costs for the UCMR
program are presented in Exhibit 8b. In addition, this exhibit presents a summary of burden and
cost per response. Analogous information for the five-year implementation period is provided in
Exhibit B-1b, in Appendix B. “Response” is defined as each required reporting event for a
system. All labor and non-labor costs associated with a reporting event (reading the regulations,
monitoring, and reporting) are included in the per response cost estimate.

Information Collection Request for UCMR 2
November 2009
32
Exhibit 8a: Yearly Cost to Systems, by System Size and by Type of Cost (2010-2012)
(corresponds to Exhibit B-1a)
Cost Description
2010
2011
2012
Total
SMALL SYSTEMS (serving 10,000 or fewer people)
Labor Costs
Reading and Initial
Reporting
$0
$0
$0 $0
Monitoring
$40,693
$0
$0 $40,693
Reporting of Results
$15,814
$0
$0 $15,814
Non-Labor Costs (Laboratory Analysis and Shipping (paid for by EPA))
$0
$0
$0 $0
Subtotal – Small Systems
$56,506
$0
$0
$56,506
LARGE SYSTEMS (serving 10,001 to 100,000 people)
Labor Costs
Reading and Initial
Reporting
$0
$0
$0 $0
Monitoring
$152,444
$0
$0
$152,444
Reporting of Results
$214,281
$0
$0
$214,281
Non-Labor Costs (Laboratory Analysis and Shipping)
$5,635,795
$0
$0
$5,635,795
Subtotal – Large Systems
$6,002,521
$0
$0
$6,002,521
VERY LARGE SYSTEMS (serving greater than 100,000 people)
Labor Costs


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 53 (Monday, March 19, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11887-11889]
[FR Doc No: 2018-05404]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0555; FRL-9975-64-Region 3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
West Virginia; Removal of Source-Specific Requirements for Permanently
Shutdown Facilities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a state
implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of West
Virginia. This revision pertains to the removal of source-specific SIP
requirements for the following five facilities in West Virginia that
have permanently shutdown: Mountaineer Carbon Company; Standard
Lafarge; Follansbee Steel Corporation; International Mill Service,
Inc.; and Columbian Chemicals Company. These sources have permanently
ceased operation; therefore, SIP requirements for these sources are
obsolete and no longer necessary for attaining and maintaining the
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). EPA is approving this
revision in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act
(CAA).

DATES: This final rule is effective on April 18, 2018.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0555. All documents in the docket are listed on
the http://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business
information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available through
http://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in
the ``For Further Information Contact'' section for additional
availability information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Irene Shandruk,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The West Virginia SIP at 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part
52, subpart XX, section 52.2520(d) contains source-specific
requirements, which were incorporated into the West Virginia SIP over
the course of many years to allow the State to demonstrate attainment
with various NAAQS. Subsequently, several of these sources have
permanently ceased operation rendering source-specific requirements for
these facilities obsolete.
    SIP revisions pertaining to the removal of obsolete SIP
requirements for sources that have permanently shutdown are considered
administrative, non-substantive changes. If a source has permanently
shutdown, the emissions are permanently reduced to zero, so removing
source-specific SIP requirements for that source will not interfere
with attainment and maintenance of any NAAQS, reasonable further
progress or any other applicable CAA requirement. See CAA section
110(l).

II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis

    On August 25, 2017, West Virginia submitted a SIP revision
requesting that the consent orders for the sources listed in Table 1 be
removed from the West Virginia SIP located at 40 CFR part 52, subpart
XX, section 52.2520(d). On December 5, 2017, EPA published a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPR) proposing to approve West Virginia's August
25, 2017 (82 FR 57418) SIP revision.

              Table 1--Source-Specific Requirements Proposed for Removal From the West Virginia SIP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   State      EPA approval date/Federal Register
             Source name                       Order          effective date             (FR) citation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mountaineer Carbon Company..........  Consent Order.........          7/2/82  9/1/82, 47 FR 38532.
Standard Lafarge....................  Consent Order CO-SIP-         11/14/91  7/25/94, 59 FR 37696.
                                       91-30.
Follansbee Steel Corporation........  Consent Order CO-SIP-         11/14/91  7/25/94, 59 FR 37696.
                                       91-31.
International Mill Service, Inc.....  Consent Order CO-SIP-         11/14/91  7/25/94, 59 FR 37696.
                                       91-33.
Columbian Chemicals Company.........  Consent Order CO-SIP-          1/31/00  8/2/00, 65 FR 47339
                                       2000-3.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Public Comments and EPA's Responses

    EPA received six public comments on the NPR to approve West
Virginia's SIP revision.
    Comment 1: The commenter expressed concern over whether the
facilities' emissions would be regulated through monitoring and
guidelines if they were to re-open.
    Response 1: CAA section 110(a)(2)(c) and Title I, Parts C and D, as
well as CAA sections 172, 173, and 161 require states to implement
permit programs consistent with the requirements of the CAA which
regulate construction and modification of stationary sources to assure
the NAAQS are achieved. These include nonattainment new source review
(NSR) and prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permit
programs. West Virginia has federally enforceable NSR and PSD permit
programs incorporated in the West Virginia SIP. See 45CSR19 (NSR
program approved 80 FR 29973(May 26, 2015)), 45CSR14 (PSD program
approved 81 FR 53009 (August 11, 2016)), and 45CSR13 (minor source NSR
program approved 79 FR 42213 (July 21, 2014)). All of the facilities
listed in the NPR were permanently shut down, but if any were to re-
open, or if any new sources were to start operating in West Virginia in
the same location, they would need to comply with the requirements of
West Virginia's permit programs, as applicable including NSR, PSD or
minor NSR. Specifically, West Virginia's rule 45CSR14, ``Permits for
the Construction and Major Modification of Major Stationary Sources of
Air Pollution for the Prevention of Significant Deterioration,'' was
approved into the West Virginia SIP in 1984 and subsequently revised
several times with the latest revision to the SIP in 2015 (81 FR
53009). West Virginia's rule 45CSR13, ``Permits for Construction,
Modification, or Relocation of Stationary Sources of Air Pollutants,
and Procedures for Registration and Evaluation,'' requiring

construction or modification permits for all regulated stationary
emission sources was approved into the West Virginia SIP in 1972 and
last updated in 2014 (79 FR 42213). West Virginia's rule 45CSR19,
``Requirements for Pre-Construction Review, Determination of Emission
Offsets for Proposed New or Modified Stationary Sources of Air
Pollutants and Bubble Concept for Intra-Source Pollutants,'' for
permitting of major sources and modifications in designated
nonattainment areas was approved into the West Virginia SIP in 1985 (50
FR 27247) with recent revisions to the rule included in the SIP in 2015
(80 FR 29973). These federally enforceable rules approved into the West
Virginia SIP ensure that pollutant-emitting sources are regulated with
appropriate and required emission limitations and monitoring
requirements as necessary, and that their operation will not prevent
West Virginia from attaining or maintaining the NAAQS.
    Comment 2: The commenter expressed concern that wildfires are
negatively impacting both public health and the environment, and that
more should be done to prevent wildfires.
    Response 2: This comment is irrelevant to this rulemaking. This
rulemaking is concerned with removing source-specific requirements from
the SIP for permanently shut down facilities in West Virginia. As the
comment is neither supportive of, critical of, nor specific to this
action, no further response is provided.
    Comment 3: The commenter questioned why the United States is
importing gas from Nigeria at Cove Point hurting the American middle
class and the working poor.
    Response 3: This comment is irrelevant to this rulemaking. This
rulemaking is concerned with removing source-specific requirements from
the SIP for permanently shut down facilities in West Virginia. As the
comment is neither supportive of, critical of, nor specific to this
action, no further response is provided.
    Comment 4: The commenter expressed concern over unnecessary and
burdensome regulations, and the regulatory process.
    Response 4: As the comment is neither supportive of, critical of,
nor specific to this action, no response is provided. This rulemaking
is concerned with removing source-specific requirements from the SIP
for permanently shut down facilities in West Virginia.
    Comment 5: The commenter expresses concern over potentially harmful
health effects from low frequency electro-magnetic fields and discusses
how their use in automobiles amongst other things could be harmful to
human health.
    Response 5: This comment is irrelevant to this rulemaking. This
rulemaking is concerned with removing source-specific requirements from
the SIP for permanently shut down facilities in West Virginia. As the
comment is neither supportive of, critical of, nor specific to this
action, no further response is provided.
    Comment 6: The commenter asserts that EPA relied on assumptions and
false evidence to lead attacks on hydraulic fracturing, and utilized
the film industry to create anti-fracking films, all to justify
regulating the industry.
    Response 6: This comment is irrelevant to this rulemaking. This
rulemaking is concerned with removing source-specific requirements from
the SIP for permanently shut down facilities in West Virginia. As the
comment is neither supportive of, critical of, nor specific to this
action, no further response is provided.

IV. Final Action

    EPA has reviewed West Virginia's SIP revision seeking removal of
obsolete source-specific SIP requirements from the West Virginia SIP.
These five sources have permanently ceased operation, rendering source-
specific SIP requirements for these sources obsolete. EPA has confirmed
that all permits have been surrendered and are inactive. Therefore, EPA
is approving the West Virginia August 25, 2017 SIP revision, which
sought removal of source-specific revisions related to five now closed
facilities, in accordance with section 110 of the CAA. As the five
sources permanently shutdown, their emissions are permanently
eliminated, so removing the source-specific SIP requirements for these
sources will not interfere with attainment and maintenance of any
NAAQS, reasonable further progress or any other applicable CAA
requirement in accordance with CAA section 110(l).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    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 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866.
     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.

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the

agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes
a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the
Comptroller General of the United States. Section 804, however, exempts
from section 801 the following types of rules: Rules of particular
applicability; rules relating to agency management or personnel; and
rules of agency organization, procedure, or practice that do not
substantially affect the rights or obligations of non-agency parties. 5
U.S.C. 804(3). Because this is a rule of particular applicability, EPA
is not required to submit a rule report regarding this action under
section 801.

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by May 18, 2018. 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 pertaining to removal of source-specific
requirements from the West Virginia SIP 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, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides,
Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: March 6, 2018.
Cosmo Servidio,
Regional Administrator, Region III.

    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 XX--West Virginia

Sec.  52.2520  [Amended]

0
2. In Sec.  52.2520, the table in paragraph (d) is amended by removing
the entries for ``Mountaineer Carbon Co,'' ``Standard Lafarge,''
``Follansbee Steel Corp,'' ``International Mill Service, Inc,'' and
``Columbian Chemicals Company.''

[FR Doc. 2018-05404 Filed 3-16-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


OMB 83 I SUPPORTING STATEMENT 1. Identification of the Information Collection ICR Title: Quality Assurance Specification and Requirements OMB Control Number: 2080 0033 This is a request for the renewal of an existing Information Collection Request ( ICR) due to expire on 08/ 31/ 00. This ICR covers the quality assurance ( QA) paperwork burden that appears at 40 CFR 30.54, 40 CFR 31.45, 40 CFR 35.260, and 35.6055. These are subsections from 40 CFR Part 30  Grants and Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Non Profit Organizations, 40 CFR Part 31  Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and Local Governments, and 40 CFR Part 35  State and Local Assistance ( Attachments 1 3). The information collection activity involves the development and implementation of QA practices consisting of policies, procedures, specifications, standards, and documentation sufficient to produce data of quality adequate to meet project objectives and to minimize loss of data due to out of control conditions or malfunctions. Specifically, this refers to the preparation of QA management and project plans. The quality system of the recipient of 40 CFR Part 30 assistance must comply with the requirements of ANSI/ ASQC E4, " Specifications and Guidelines for Quality Systems for Environmental Data Collection and Environmental Technology Programs." A clarifying statement for all organizations receiving EPA financial assistance under 40 CFR Part 31 and 40 CFR Part 35 has been issued by the Office of Grants and Debarment ( Attachment 4). This clarifying statement defines Agency wide criteria for meeting the requirements under the applicable CFRs and is consistent with Agency policy since 1988. It cites the ANSI/ ASQC E4 as a national consensus standard that applies to all recipients. All QA submissions are reviewed and approved by an EPA certified project officer and/ or a designated QA officer.

Based on files maintained by the Grants Administration Division, EPA has received an average of 4000 applications for financial assistance annually for the last three years. Approximately 3900 of these were awarded each year. Excluding training, fellowships, and construction grants, it is estimated that 53% ( or about 2100) of the awarded grants include environmental data measurements for non profit organization research or for State, local, and Tribal governments.

The existing ICR authorized two types of information collection activities: ( 1) the preparation of a written QA narrative statement for exploratory research projects proposed by non profit organizations; and ( 2) a QA plan that describes the basic QA aspects of projects proposed by State, local, or Tribal agencies that employ environmentally related measurements. Although these documents appeared to be somewhat different in past surveys, it is now recognized that the ultimate use of the data by the Agency determines the extensiveness of the documentation. For this ICR extension, the data collected is an average for all types of QA documentation received from either type of institution. An informal survey of the amount and type of QA plans generated by assistance agreements handled by EPA certified project officers and designated QA officers was conducted through the QA Managers. The purpose of the informal survey was to update the burden hours associated with this information collection for the fourth 3 year review. The survey encompassed approximately 82% of grants awarded in fiscal year1999 involving environmental data measurements. The informal survey revealed that the quantity of QA plans being developed and reviewed has increased significantly from the 1996 survey of 1497 to 1940. The preparation time is estimated to remain at an average of 85 hours per plan, for an average cost of $ 2210 per plan.

2. Need for and Use of the Collection 2( a) Need/ Authority for the Collection. This ICR is necessary because of the information collection and reporting requirements included in 40 CFR 30.54, 40 CFR 31.45, and 40 CFR 35.260 and 35.6055. These regulations implement OMB Circular A 119, Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities ( February 1998). The information collected is needed to assure that environmental monitoring and research projects awarded financial assistance will produce data of known and documented quality. The EPA spends millions of dollars annually in financial assistance grants to support environmental monitoring and research projects that further the Agency's goals to protect and improve environmental quality. The EPA has established a policy ( EPA Order 5360.1 CHG 1) ( Attachment 5) that all environmental data collection activities funded or required by the Agency must participate in a centrally managed QA program. This policy requires all extramural projects involving environmental measurements to adhere to QA guidelines. The intent of this policy is to ensure that all data used in environmental protection efforts will be valid, scientifically sound, legally defensible, and of known and documented quality.

2( b) Practical Utility/ Users of the Data. The appropriate EPA Office and its designated QA Manager and/ or EPA certified Project Officer use the information collected as a basis for recommending approval of financial assistance grants for projects involving environmental measurements. In addition, collection of data is contingent upon approval of QA plans to ensure that data are of adequate quality for their intended use by EPA programs. The Agency has been criticized through internal management reviews, OIG, and GAO audits for failings in this area. In 1992, environmental data quality was identified as a Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act ( FMFIA) weakness for all appropriations. The responsible management cited was the Director, Quality Assurance Division ( now reorganized as the Quality Staff in the Office of Environmental Information). In view of the heightened awareness throughout EPA of QA of the use of data collected by others, the scrutiny of submitted QA plans has increased. This has resulted in more attention being given to the preparation of QA plans by grantees. 3. Nonduplication, Consultations, and Other Collection Criteria 3( a) Nonduplication. Subsequent to a thorough review of information systems and files at EPA headquarters and throughout the ten EPA regions, it has been determined that there is no duplication of this ICR internally within the Agency or by any other Federal Agency.

3( b) Public Notice Required Prior to ICR Submission to OMB. A notice about this renewal was published in the Federal Register. The public comment period closed May 22, 2000. No public comments were received.

3( c) Consultations. 40 CFR Part 30 and 40 CFR Part 31 were both subjected to public review and comment prior to the effective date of the final rule. Except for some suggestions for clarity, there were no serious objections raised to the QA specifications and requirements contained in these regulations. Regional QA Managers interact with their State counterparts concerning their grant QA plan submissions. In addition, all EPA QA Managers were asked to inform interested parties when updating burden information and to forward comments received at any time since the last renewal. No comments were forwarded concerning this renewal. In addition, the ICR for collection of information under general regulation for assistance programs was renewed recently, and received no public comment.

3( d) Effects of Less Frequent Collection. The frequency of collection has no effect on the content, quality, or use of the information covered by this ICR.

3( e) General Guidelines. This ICR conforms to all guidelines for Federal data requestors contained in 5 CFR 1320.6, and OMB Circular A 102 and A 110.

3( f) Confidentiality. Confidentiality is not applicable to this ICR.

3( g) Sensitive Questions. Sensitive questions are not applicable to this ICR.

4. The Respondents and the Information Requested 4( a) Respondents/ SIC Codes. The respondents are administrators of environmental quality programs ( SIC # 951).

4( b) Information Requested.

( i) Data Items. The data items are those listed in the relevant regulations, 40 CFR 30.54 and 40 CFR 31.45. In addition, guidance is available that will be final pending another Federal Register notice. These are EPA Requirements for Quality Management Plans ( EPA QA/ R 2) ( Interim Final, November 1999) and EPA Requirements for Quality Assurance Project Plans ( EPA QA/ R 5) ( Interim Final, November 1999), Attachments 6 and 7. ( ii) Respondent Activities. The activities required by respondents completing QA plans remain the same. They include the following:

 read the regulation,  read QA guides, and  prepare/ review the QA plan.

The EPA QA Managers report no significant change in the length of time for this activity in the last three years. However, in the last renewal, narrative statements for some research grants were considered separately. These generally are less time consuming to prepare, but will be aggregated with the others for this renewal.

5. The Information Collected 5( a) Agency Activities. Agency activities include the following:

 Answer respondents' questions; and  Review and approve QA plans.

5( b) Collection Methodology and Management. The information collected is part of the application package for financial assistance and is usually collected through the U. S. mail or delivered by courier to the appropriate EPA office. Because of the size of the completed application package associated with the ICR, electronic mail or computers are not currently used for collection. When the grants office permits electronic submission, QA documentation, which is usually available electronically, will be included.

A copy of the information collected is kept on file with the EPA QA function or the EPA certified project officer, and the original returned to the applicant for use in conducting the environmental data collection activity that was the subject of the application.

5( c) Small Entity Flexibility. Small entities are not affected by this information collection. Any small municipality may be included in a county and/ or State application for assistance and thus be relieved of any paper burden resulting from this information collection. In addition, because the amount and type of QA information is directly related to the collection and use of the data, the EPA considers the cost of QA documentation as integral to the projects proposed in awarding the assistance.

5( d) Collection Schedule. The information collection for this ICR can occur at anytime during EPA's fiscal year, but most applications for financial assistance covered by the ICR are collected during the first half of the budget year to ensure processing and funding from current year program funds. The collection schedule has no effect on the quality, content, or use of the information collected. 6. Estimating the Burden and Cost of the Collection 6( a) Estimating Respondent Burden. Table I uses information obtained from the QA Managers ( based on a survey of actual documents reviewed) in the EPA to determine the burden of this information collection. To estimate the burden as shown in Table I, we have not revised this calculation significantly from the last submission. Preparers ( and reviewers) usually do their own preparation directly with personal computers, and require little, if any, clerical support. To determine the burden hours per year, we used the means of the labor hour estimates from our survey. This number ( 85) is the same as that previously reported [ except for some research grant narrative statements, as noted in 4( b)( ii) above]. From this informal survey, the number of respondents was 1592 for the fiscal year 1999. This number was extrapolated to the average of all grants awarded for the year as reported by EPA's Grants Administration Division ( GAD) ( 3630), as 53% requiring environmental data collection ( or 1940) in the bottom line burden estimates shown in Table I. This is 30% greater than the previous number reported ( 1497). A reasonable explanation may be that more funds are available for assistance agreements with EPA and that more data for EPA use is being collected through extramural agreements rather than by EPA staff directly.

6( b) Estimating Respondent Costs. The average hourly cost, including overhead, is calculated from our informal survey at $ 26 for preparers. This is a combined figure to represent all respondents, rather than as previously, where State, local, and other government respondents were segregated from non profit institutions. Many QA Managers are familiar with their counterparts in these organizations and can give reasonable estimates of this rate.

6( c) Estimating Agency Burden and Cost. To estimate the Agency's burden and cost we used the survey reported hourly rate ( generally GS 13 or an equivalent mid level GS 12) with prescribed 1.6 multiplier, and divided by 2080 hours to arrive at the hourly rate used in Table II ($ 42). Since the application records are maintained on file as part of normal government practice, the record keeping costs were considered negligible. The Agency total hourly burden for assistance agreements was calculated to be 24 hours for each of 1940 respondents, or 46,560 hours. The cost associated with each response of $ 1008, times 1940 responses, totals $ 1,955,520 for the Agency burden.

6( d) Estimating the Respondent Universe and Total Burden and Costs. The respondent total hourly burden for assistance agreements was calculated to be 85 hours for each of 1940 respondents, or 164,900 hours. The cost associated with each response of $ 2210, times 1940 respondents, totals $ 4,287,400 for the respondent burden.

6( e) Bottom Line Burden Hours and Cost Tables. From our best knowledge and experience with the information activity covered by this ICR, we estimate that the total burden and cost for all respondents will be not more than as shown in the table as above, 164,900 hours and $ 4,287,400. This is more than the last submission ($ 1,498,038) and the one previous to that ($ 2,609,300). The EPA burden is as reported above, with 46,560 hours and $ 1,955,520 for the estimated 1940 responses. This amount supports the QA requirement for the multi billion dollar assistance agreement program in EPA. 6( f) Reason for Changes in Burden. The reasons for the changes in burden estimates are both " program" and " adjustment." The EPA is devoting more funds ( an adjustment) to assistance agreements as it delegates more programs and collects fewer data intramurally. An adjustment, as a result, is an increase of 443 agreements, or + 30%. EPA is continuing the effort to document QA practices commensurate with EPA's use of the data collected ( a program change). This ICR burden estimate was calculated for the first time to conservatively minimize the difference between research ( non profit) and State, local, and Tribal government submissions to reflect this emphasis on the intended use of the data rather than the type of award. This resulted in a combined higher salary hourly estimate of $ 26 for the preparer and a substantial increase in estimated preparation hours. There remains a great range of estimates within submissions, however, for these hours. QA Managers reported that research grant proposals take as few as 3 hours to prepare, whereas other plans may take as many as 220 hours. The longer times reflect State, local, and Tribal grants, where there is a significant learning curve among respondents who are updating documentation to comply with ANSI/ ASQC E 4 for complex environmental monitoring programs. It is expected that once these QA plans are in place that they will be updated readily and the preparer hours will drop. The resulting change is + 186% in burden estimated for this ICR from the last renewal ( which had decreased by 43% from the previous ICR).

6( g) Burden Statement. Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 85 hours per response for QA plans prepared, including the time for reviewing the regulation, reading QA guides, and preparing and reviewing the QA plan.

Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR Part 9 and 48 CFR Chapter 15.

Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques to the Director, Collection Strategies Division, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency ( 2822), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W., Washington, D. C. 20460; and to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, N. W., Washington, D. C. 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for EPA. Include the EPA ICR number and OMB control number in any correspondence. TABLE I.

Annual Respondent Burden/ Cost Estimates Collection Activities Burden Hours ( per document) Technical Staff @ $ 26/ hour Hours Cost 1. Read Regulation 1 1 $ 26 2. Read QA Guides 4 4 $ 104 3. Prepare Review 80 80 $ 2080 TOTAL 85 $ 2210 ANNUAL BURDEN: Hour total ( 85) x number of respondents ( 1940) = 164,900 hours ANNUAL COST: Cost total ($ 2210) x number of respondents ( 1940) = $ 4,287,400 TABLE II.

Annual Agency Burden/ Cost Estimates Collection Activities Burden Hours ( per document) Technical Staff @ $ 42/ hour Hours Cost 1. Answer Questions, Review QA Plans 24 24 $ 1008 TOTAL 24 $ 1008 ANNUAL BURDEN: Hour total ( 24) x number of respondents ( 1940) = 21,340 hours ANNUAL COST: Cost total ($ 1008) x number of respondents ( 1940) = $ 1,955,520


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 83 (Thursday, April 30, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24225-24226]
[FR Doc No: 2015-10103]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 83 / Thursday, April 30, 2015 /
Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 25

[Docket No. FAA-2015-0758; Notice No. 25-15-05-SC]

Special Conditions: L-3 Communications Integrated Systems, Boeing
Model 747-8 Series Airplanes; Therapeutic Oxygen for Medical Use

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed special conditions.

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes special conditions for the Boeing Model
747-8 series airplanes. This airplane, as modified by L-3
Communications Integrated Systems (L-3), will have a novel or unusual
design feature when compared to the state of technology envisioned in
the airworthiness standards for transport-category airplanes. This
design feature is therapeutic oxygen for medical use installed in an
executive-interior airplane. The applicable airworthiness regulations
do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design
feature. These proposed special conditions contain the additional
safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to
establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the
existing airworthiness standards.

DATES: Send your comments on or before May 20, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2015-0758
using any of the following methods:
     Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/ and follow the online instructions for sending
your comments electronically.
     Mail: Send comments to Docket Operations, M-30, U.S.
Department of Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room
W12-140, West Building Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
     Hand Delivery or Courier: Take comments to Docket
Operations in Room W12-140 of the West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
     Fax: Fax comments to Docket Operations at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Privacy: The FAA will post all comments it receives, without
change, to http://www.regulations.gov/, including any personal
information the commenter provides. Using the search function of the
docket Web site, anyone can find and read the electronic form of all
comments received into any FAA docket, including the name of the
individual sending the comment (or signing the comment for an
association, business, labor union, etc.). DOT's complete Privacy Act
Statement can be found in the Federal Register published on April 11,
2000 (65 FR 19477-19478), as well as at http://DocketsInfo.dot.gov/ gov/.
    Docket: Background documents or comments received may be read at
http://www.regulations.gov/ at any time. Follow the online instructions
for accessing the docket or go to Docket Operations in Room W12-140 of
the West Building Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Hettman, FAA, Propulsion and
Mechanical Systems, ANM-112, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington, 98057-
3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; facsimile<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite interested people to take part in this rulemaking by
sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments
reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the
reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.
    We will consider all comments we receive by the closing date for
comments. We may change these special conditions based on the comments
we receive.

Background

    On May 10, 2011, L-3 applied for a supplemental type certificate
(STC) for therapeutic oxygen for medical use in the Boeing Model 747-8
series airplanes equipped with executive interiors. The Boeing Model
747-8 series airplane, which is a derivative of the Boeing Model 747-
400 airplane currently approved under Type Certificate No. A20WE, is a
four-engine jet-transport airplane that will have a maximum takeoff
weight of 970,000 lbs. The Model 747-8 airplane will have 153 seats
approved for taxi, takeoff, and landing (19 crewmembers and 134
passengers).
    Section 25.1445 includes standards for oxygen-distribution systems
when oxygen is supplied to flightcrew and passengers. If a common
source of supply is used, Sec.  25.1445(a)(2) requires a means to
separately reserve the minimum supply required by the flightcrew. This
requirement was included in Sec.  25.1445 when the regulations were
codified, and was originally added to Civil Air Regulations 4b.831 at
Amendment 4b-13, effective September 21, 1949.
    It is apparent that the regulation is intended to protect the
flightcrew by ensuring that an adequate supply of oxygen is available
to complete a descent and landing following a loss of cabin pressure.
When the regulation was written, the only passenger-oxygen system
designs were supplemental-oxygen systems intended to protect passengers
from hypoxia in the event of a decompression. Existing passenger-oxygen
systems did not include design features that would allow the flightcrew
to control oxygen to passengers during flight. There are no similar
requirements when oxygen is supplied from the same source to passengers
for use during a decompression and for discretionary/first-aid use any
time during the flight. In the proposed design, the passenger and
therapeutic-oxygen systems use the same source of oxygen. The
flightcrew-oxygen emergency system uses a dedicated source of oxygen
independent from the passenger-oxygen system. An oxygen-duration chart
and operation procedures will be incorporated into the ``Flight Crew
Operating Manual'' and ``Flight Manual Supplement,'' as part of the
STC, to provide information to the flightcrew to determine when to
cease operation of the therapeutic system as a

means by which to reserve the minimum supply of supplemental passenger
oxygen.

Type Certification Basis

    Under the provisions of Sec.  21.101, L-3 must show that the Boeing
Model 747-8 series airplane, as changed, continues to meet the
applicable provisions of the regulations listed in Type Certificate No.
A20WE, or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of
application for the change, except for earlier amendments as agreed
upon by the FAA.
    If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness
regulations (i.e., Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part
25) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the
Boeing Model 747-8 series airplane because of a novel or unusual design
feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of
Sec.  21.16.
    Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which
they are issued. Should the applicant apply for an STC to modify any
other model included on the same type certificate to incorporate the
same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would
also apply to the other model under Sec.  21.101.
    In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special
conditions, the Boeing Model 747-8 series airplane must comply with the
fuel-vent and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34; and the
noise-certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.
    The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in
accordance with Sec.  11.38, and they become part of the type-
certification basis under Sec.  21.101.

Novel or Unusual Design Features

    L-3 is seeking certification of an interior modification to Boeing
Model 747-8 series airplanes to include executive and medical-patient
transport. As a part of the executive-interior installation, the
airplane will be outfitted with a therapeutic-oxygen system. The
therapeutic-oxygen system shares the same supply of oxygen with the
existing passenger-oxygen system and consists of multiple constant-flow
oxygen outlets located throughout the cabin. The flightcrew can turn
the therapeutic-oxygen system on and off from the flight deck to allow
use at any point during the flight, and to preserve a sufficient
remaining oxygen reserve, in the event therapeutic oxygen is used for
medical purposes, to accommodate the passengers in the event of an
emergency-oxygen situation.
    The gaseous passenger-oxygen system will be modified to accommodate
additional supply cylinders and several therapeutic-oxygen outlets
located throughout the cabin. Each therapeutic outlet will provide a
constant flow of oxygen at either 2 or 4 liters per minute. The
flightcrew will be able to control the flow of therapeutic oxygen at
any time during flight. Therapeutic-oxygen systems previously have been
certified, and were generally considered an extension of the passenger-
oxygen system for the purpose of defining the applicable regulations.
As a result, the applicable regulations included those that applied to
oxygen systems in general, or supplemental-oxygen systems.

Discussion

    No specific regulations address the design and installation of
oxygen systems used specifically for therapeutic applications. Existing
requirements, such as Sec. Sec.  25.1309, 25.1441(b) and (c), 25.1451,
and 24.1453, in the Boeing Model 747-8 airplane certification basis
applicable to this STC project, provide some design standards
appropriate for oxygen-system installations. However, additional design
standards for systems supplementing the existing oxygen system are
needed to complement the existing applicable requirements. The addition
of equipment involved in this installation, and the unsafe conditions
that can exist when the oxygen content of an enclosed area becomes too
high because of system leaks, malfunction, or damage from external
sources, make it necessary to ensure that adequate safety standards are
applied to the design and installation of the oxygen system in Boeing
Model 747-8 series airplanes. These potential hazards also necessitate
development and application of appropriate additional design and
installation standards.
    These proposed special conditions contain the additional safety
standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a
level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing
airworthiness standards.

Applicability

    As discussed above, these proposed special conditions are
applicable to the Boeing Model 747-8 series airplanes. Should L-3 apply
at a later date for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other
model included on Type Certificate No. A20WE to incorporate the same
novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply
to that model as well.
    Certification of these Boeing Model 747-8 series airplanes is
currently scheduled for June 2015. Therefore, because a delay would
significantly affect the applicant's installation of the system and the
certification of the airplane, we are shortening the public-comment
period to 20 days.

Conclusion

    This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features
on one model series of airplanes. It is not a rule of general
applicability, and affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA
for approval of these features on the airplane.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 25

    Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.

The Proposed Special Conditions

    Accordingly, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) proposes the
following special conditions as part of the type-certification basis
for Boeing Model 747-8 series airplanes as modified by L-3
Communications Integrated Systems.
    The distribution system for the therapeutic-oxygen system must be
designed and installed as follows:
    When oxygen is supplied to passengers for both supplemental and
therapeutic purposes, the distribution system must be designed for
either--
    1. A source of supplemental supply for protection from hypoxia
following a loss of cabin pressure, and a separate source for
therapeutic purposes, or
    2. A common source of supply, with means to separately reserve the
minimum supply required by the passengers for supplemental use
following a loss of cabin pressure.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on April 17, 2015.
Victor Wicklund,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-10103 Filed 4-29-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


Numbers may not add due to rounding.

15. Explain the reasons for any program changes or adjustments reported in hour or cost burden.
For the soil fumigations, the increase in burden hours from 198,261 to 199,362 is primarily due to updating the estimate of the number of certified applicators and handlers for soil fumigations. The change in burden cost for soil fumigation is due to updating the wages to 2021 based on BLS data as described in question 12 and the NAICS codes for certified applicators and pesticide handler. Under the old NAICS code in the previous ICR, the loaded wage per hour was estimated to be $37 for certified applicators and $27 for pesticide handlers. Under the new NAICS codes in this ICR, the loaded wage per hour is estimated to be $26 for certified applicators and $22 for pesticide handlers.
For the non-soil fumigations, the decrease in burden from 952,635 to 642,376 hours is primarily due to a reduction in the estimated time to complete an FMP based on comments received on this ICR by two states (CA and FL) that conduct a significant proportion of the non-soil fumigations in the U.S. In the previous ICR, initial non-soil FMPs were estimated to take 4 hours and subsequent ones to the same structure were estimated to take 2 hrs. Based on feedback from the comments, the time to complete a FMP is the same, whether it is the first or second time. In addition, the estimated time that it takes to complete a FMP is much lower, roughly about an hour. In addition, this ICR renewal updated the estimate of the number of non-soil fumigations, and the number of certified applicators and handlers for non-soil fumigations. The comments also led to a change in the wages for non-soil fumigations, which were increased to $50/hour for certified applicators and $40/hour for pesticide handlers. This wage change is the primary driver for the increase in burden cost for non-soil fumigations.
The annual respondent burden for this ICR is estimated to be 841,738 burden hours for both soil (199,362) and non-soil fumigations (642,376). The difference in burden hours for these two types of fumigations is driven by the annual estimate of applications and number of certified applicators. It is estimated that there are on average 12,651 soil and 221,300 non-soil fumigation applications in a year. It is estimated that there are 5,075 soil and 24,527 non-soil certified applicators based on data submitted by various states to the EPA. There is also an increase of capital and/or maintenance costs by $129,380.
In summary, the increase for Soil Fumigants burden (1,101 hours) and decrease for Non-Soil Fumigants burden (310,258 hours), together adds up to a decrease of 309,158 hours in the burden. This decrease is the same as the difference between 1,150,896 (Current approved burden) minus 841,738 (New overall burden).
16. For collections whose results will be published, outline the plans for tabulation and publication. Address any complex analytical techniques that will be used. Provide the time schedule for the entire project, including beginning and ending dates of the collection of information, completion of report, publication dates, and other actions.
This ICR primarily involves activities conducted for the purpose of submitting or providing information to third parties. For registrants who must submit training and safety information materials to the Agency for review, there is no set collection schedule as registrants submit materials only when developed or updated. EPA periodically checks the fumigant risk mitigation measures as a part of the registration review program.
17. If seeking approval to not display the expiration date for OMB approval of the information collection, explain the reasons why display would be inappropriate.
This question not applicable to this ICR
18. Explain each exception to the certification statement identified in "Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act submissions"
EPA does not request an exception to the certification of this information collection.
SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION
PRA Burden Statement for Collection Instruments
This collection of information is approved by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. (OMB Control No. 2070-0197). Responses to this collection of information are mandatory for certain persons, as specified at 40 CFR Parts 152, 156, 158, and 171. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information is estimated to be 1-3.24 hours per response. Send comments on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden to the Regulatory Support Division Director, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2821T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, D.C. 20460. Include the OMB control number in any correspondence. Do not send the completed form to this address.
 To comment on the Agency's need for this information, the accuracy of the provided burden estimates, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondent burden, including the use of automated collection techniques, EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2022-0150, which is available at https://www.regulations.gov. This site can be used to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. When in the system, select "search," then key in the Docket ID Number identified above.
You can also provide comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget via https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review -- Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function.
All comments received by EPA will be included in the docket without change, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
For the latest status information on EPA/DC services and docket access, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
The attachments listed below can be found in the docket for this ICR or by using the hyperlink that is provided in the list below. The docket for this ICR is accessible electronically through http://www.regulations.gov using Docket ID Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2022-0150.
Attachment
Description
                                       A
7 U.S.C. 136a - FIFRA section 3(c)(2)(B) and 7 U.S.C. 136a - FIFRA Section 3(c)(5). https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/USCODE-2011-title7/USCODE-2011-title7-chap6-subchapII-sec136a
                                       B
Docket Numbers for Fumigant Reregistration Eligibility Decisions and Supporting Documents
                                       C
EPA OIG Report: Additional Measures Can Be Taken to Prevent Deaths and Serious Injuries From Residential Fumigations. https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0423-0011

                                       D
Consultation & Comments from Stakeholders
                                       E
Worksheet for Estimating OPP ICR Wage Rates for Industry, State and EPA Labor Costs
                                       F
Fumigant Management Plans (FMP) Information and Templates. https://www.epa.gov/soil-fumigants/fumigant-management-plan-templates-phase-2-files-listed-chemical
                                       G
Identifying Fumigant High-Use Areas Using Metam-Sodium as an Example
                                       H
Information Activities Collected in the Soil and Non-Soil Fumigants ICR


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 104 (Tuesday, May 31, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 32464]
[FR Doc No: 2022-11541]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2011-0197]

Occupational Safety and Health State Plans; Extension of the
Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Approval of Information
Collection (Paperwork) Requirements

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

ACTION: Notice; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)
published a document in the Federal Register on April 19, 2022
soliciting public comments concerning the proposal to extend the Office
of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval of the information collection
requirements specified in the regulation on Occupational Safety and
Health State Plans. The document contained incorrect docket numbers and
Secretary of Labor Order No. This notice corrects these errors.

DATES: This correction is effective May 31, 2022.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Seleda Perryman or Theda Kenney,
Directorate of Standards and Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of Labor;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Correction

    In the Federal Register of April 19, 2022 (87 FR 23268-23270),
correct the Docket Number as described below.
    1. On page 23269, in the first paragraph, in the fourth line,
change the Docket Number to read:

[Docket No. OSHA-2011-0197]
* * * * *
    2. On page 23269, in the third column, in the paragraph titled
``Public Participation,'' change the Docket Number to read:

[Docket No. OSHA-2011-0197]
* * * * *
    3. On page 23270, in the first column, in the paragraph titled ``V.
Authority and Signature,'' change the Secretary of Labor Order No. to
read:

[8-2020 (85 FR 58393)]
* * * * *

Authority and Signature

    James S. Frederick, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this
notice. The authority for this notice is the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3506 et seq.) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 8-2020
(85 FR 58393).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on May 23, 2022.
James S. Frederick,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2022-11541 Filed 5-27-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 68 (Tuesday, April 9, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14019-14021]
[FR Doc No: 2019-06882]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2018-0078; FRL-9991-94-Region 4]

Air Plan Approval; North Carolina; Miscellaneous Rules

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to approve changes to the North Carolina State Implementation
Plan (SIP) submitted by the State of North Carolina, through the North
Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ), through letters
dated April 4, 2017, August 22, 2017, and September 28, 2018. These SIP
revisions make amendments, most of which are structural and minor, to
North Carolina's source testing rules. This action is being taken
pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).

DATES: This rule will be effective May 9, 2019.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R04-OAR-2018-0078. All documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov website. 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 Air
Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation 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 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andres Febres, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, Region 4, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Mr. Febres can also be reached
via electronic mail at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Through letters dated April 4, 2017, August 22, 2017, and September
28, 2018, the State of North Carolina, through NCDEQ, submitted three
SIP revisions for EPA approval.\1\ These SIP revisions include
structural amendments to 15A North Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC)
02D Section .0501--Compliance with Emission Control Standards, and
typographical amendments to 15A NCAC 02D Section .0536--Particulate
Emissions from Electric Utility Boilers.\2\ Additionally, the SIP
revisions incorporate, for primarily structural and organizational
reasons, four new rules: 15A NCAC 02D Sections .2609--Particulate
Testing Methods, .2610--Opacity, .2611--Sulfur Dioxide Testing Methods,
and .2617--Total Reduced Sulfur. EPA has determined that a number of
these changes to the North Carolina SIP are either structural or minor
and ministerial and do not alter the meaning of any SIP provisions. EPA
has also determined that all other changes are SIP-strengthening, and
that all are consistent with federal regulations regarding source
testing and are approvable pursuant to section 110 of the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA received the SIP revisions on April 28, 2017, September
6, 2017, and October 10, 2018, respectively.
    \2\ In the table of North Carolina regulations federally-
approved into the SIP at 40 CFR 52.1770(c), 15A NCAC 02D is referred
to as ``Subchapter 2D Air Pollution Control Requirements.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The changes to the North Carolina SIP that are the subject of this
final rulemaking, as well as EPA's analysis of the changes and
rationale for approving them, are described in further detail in a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on February 12, 2019 (84
FR 3381). Comments on the NPRM were due on or before March 14, 2019.
EPA received no relevant comments on the proposed action. EPA is now
taking final action to approve these revisions.

II. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference under Subchapter
2D, of North Carolina's SIP, Sections .0501--Compliance with Emission
Control Standards, .0536--Particulate Emissions from Electric Utility
Boilers, .2609--Particulate Testing Methods, .2610--Opacity, .2611--
Sulfur Dioxide Testing Methods, and .2617--Total Reduced Sulfur, all
state effective June 1, 2008. EPA has made, and will continue to make,
these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and at
the EPA Region 4 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 EPA for
inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by

reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally enforceable under
sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final
rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference in
the next update to the SIP compilation.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving North Carolina's April 4, 2017, August 22, 2017,
and September 28, 2018, SIP revisions. Specifically, EPA is approving,
under Subchapter 2D of the North Carolina SIP, the addition of new
Sections .2609, .2610, .2611, and .2617, as well as amendments to
existing Sections .0501 and .0536. EPA is approving these SIP revisions
because the Agency has determined that they are consistent with the CAA
and will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of any NAAQS,
reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement.

IV. 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. See 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. 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 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     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).
    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 as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it 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 June 10, 2019. 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, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: March 29, 2019.
Mary S. Walker,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
    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 II--North Carolina

0
2. Section 52.1770(c)(1) is amended in the table under ``Subchapter 2D
Air Pollution Control Requirements'' by:
0
a. Revising the entries for ``Section .0501'' and ``Section .0536'';
and
0
b. Adding entries, in numerical order, for ``Section .2609'', ``Section
.2610'', ``Section .2611'', and ``Section .2617''.
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  52.1770   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                   (1) EPA Approved North Carolina Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             State
          State citation              Title/subject     effective date   EPA approval date       Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Subchapter 2D Air Pollution Control Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Section .0500 Emission Control Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section .0501....................  Compliance with            6/1/2008  4/9/2019, [Insert    ...................
                                    Emission Control                     citation of
                                    Standards.                           publication].

                                                  * * * * * * *
Section .0536....................  Particulate                6/1/2008  4/9/2019, [Insert    ...................
                                    Emissions from                       citation of
                                    Electric Utility                     publication].
                                    Boilers.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Section .2600 Source Testing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Section .2609....................  Particulate Testing        6/1/2008  4/9/2019, [Insert    ...................
                                    Methods.                             citation of
                                                                         publication].
Section .2610....................  Opacity............        6/1/2008  4/9/2019, [Insert    ...................
                                                                         citation of
                                                                         publication].
Section .2611....................  Sulfur Dioxide             6/1/2008  4/9/2019, [Insert    ...................
                                    Testing Methods.                     citation of
                                                                         publication].

                                                  * * * * * * *
Section .2617....................  Total Reduced              6/1/2008  4/9/2019, [Insert    ...................
                                    Sulfur.                              citation of
                                                                         publication].

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2019-06882 Filed 4-8-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P