[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 28 (Friday, February 10, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6963-6971]
[FR Doc No: 2012-2984]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2011-0623; FRL-9628-7]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Maryland; Preconstruction Permitting Requirements for Electric
Generating Stations in Maryland

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is granting limited approval of a State Implementation
Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Maryland Department of the
Environment (MDE). This SIP revision revises and supplements the
Maryland SIP by adding the preconstruction permitting requirements for
electric generating stations that are required to receive a Certificate
of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) from the Maryland Public
Service Commission (PSC) before commencing construction or
modification. The SIP revision also requires electric generating
stations to obtain a preconstruction permit from MDE when a CPCN is not
required under the PSC regulations and statutes. EPA is granting
limited approval of these revisions to Maryland's preconstruction
program for electric generating stations in accordance with the
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is effective on March 12, 2012.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2011-0623. All documents in the docket are listed in
the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the electronic
docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e., 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 either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air
Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III,
1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State
submission are available at the Maryland Department of the Environment,
1800 Washington Boulevard, Suite 705, Baltimore, Maryland 21230.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Talley,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Throughout this document, whenever ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is
used, we mean EPA. The PSC is an agent of the State of Maryland and is
an independent unit in the Executive Branch of the government of the
State of Maryland. The PSC regulates public utilities including
electric generating stations owned by electric companies doing business
in Maryland and is empowered by the State of Maryland to issue CPCNs

for the construction and modification of electric generating stations.
On August 4, 2011 (76 FR 47090), EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPR) for the State of Maryland. The NPR proposed approval
of changes to the Code of Maryland Administrative Regulations (COMAR),
specifically the MDE regulations at COMAR <IP_ADDRESS> and <IP_ADDRESS>.
The NPR also proposed to approve into the Maryland SIP for first time
the following: (1) Maryland statutory provisions at Md. Code Ann.,
Public Utilities Cos. sections 7-205 (2006), 7-207 (2007), 7-207.1
(2007) and 7-208 (2001); and (2) PSC regulations at COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>;
<IP_ADDRESS>; <IP_ADDRESS>; <IP_ADDRESS>; <IP_ADDRESS>; <IP_ADDRESS>;
<IP_ADDRESS>; <IP_ADDRESS>; and <IP_ADDRESS>. The formal SIP revision
(11-01) was submitted by MDE on May 13, 2011. EPA initially
proposed full approval of the submission.
    However, in response to comments received on that proposal, a
portion of the submission has been withdrawn by MDE. On December 20,
2011, MDE withdrew COMAR <IP_ADDRESS> (regarding the PSC's waiver
authority for CPCNs) from its Maryland SIP revision submission. EPA is
now granting limited approval of the remainder of the MDE SIP
submission for electric generating stations which includes COMAR
<IP_ADDRESS> and <IP_ADDRESS>, applicable parts of sections 7-205, 7-207,
7-207.1 and 7-208 of the Md. Code Ann., and applicable parts of COMAR
<IP_ADDRESS>; <IP_ADDRESS>; <IP_ADDRESS>; <IP_ADDRESS>; <IP_ADDRESS>;
<IP_ADDRESS>; <IP_ADDRESS>; and <IP_ADDRESS>. See Sections III, IV and V
below for more detail.
    In our August 4, 2011 notice of proposed rulemaking, EPA proposed
to include a July 15, 2011 letter from the Secretary of MDE in the
Maryland SIP. Because MDE's July 15, 2011 letter addressed COMAR
<IP_ADDRESS> which MDE has subsequently withdrawn from our
consideration, EPA is not including the July 15, 2011 Letter in our
limited approval of the May 13, 2011 Maryland SIP submission (as
amended on December 20, 2011).

II. Summary of SIP Revision

    Under the CAA, major stationary sources of air pollution are
required to obtain a permit to construct prior to commencing
construction or modification activities. The Maryland statutory
provisions at sections 7-205, 7-207, 7-207.1, and 7-208 of the Md. Code
Ann. and the PSC's regulations identified above require electric
generating stations in Maryland to obtain a CPCN from the PSC prior to
construction or modification activities which would require a permit
under the CAA. The CPCNs serve as the mechanism for the State to
implement Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and
Nonattainment New Source Review (NSR) requirements for electric
generating stations in Maryland. EPA is limitedly approving Maryland's
SIP revision request to add the statutory and regulatory requirements
that require electric generating stations to obtain a CPCN prior to
construction or modification. These requirements were not previously in
the Maryland SIP; therefore, our limited approval corrects deficiencies
in the Maryland SIP and strengthens the SIP.
    Previously, the Maryland SIP at COMAR <IP_ADDRESS> and <IP_ADDRESS>
exempted electric generating stations constructed or modified by
electric generating companies from MDE's permitting regulations.
However, the State of Maryland has since modified Md. Code Ann.,
Environment Section 2-402(3) and COMAR <IP_ADDRESS> and <IP_ADDRESS> so
that electric generating stations that are not required to obtain CPCNs
from the PSC remain subject to MDE's preconstruction permitting
requirements. Therefore, the SIP regulations were inconsistent with
Maryland's present statutory and regulatory provisions in that they do
not preserve MDE's permitting authority for electric generating
stations that are not required otherwise to obtain a CPCN. MDE's May
13, 2011 SIP revision request included the amended MDE regulations,
COMAR <IP_ADDRESS> and <IP_ADDRESS>. Our limited approval of the May 13,
2011 SIP revision request, as amended on December 20, 2011, eliminates
the inconsistency between the Maryland SIP and Maryland's present
statutory and regulatory provisions regarding MDE's ability to permit
electric generating stations when the electric generating stations do
not receive CPCNs.
    Section 110(a)(2)(C) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. section 7410(a)(2)(C),
requires the state SIP to have a program for regulation of construction
and modification of stationary sources to assure that national ambient
air quality standards (NAAQS) are achieved, including a permit program
as required by Part C of Title I of the CAA for PSD and Part D of Title
I of the CAA for NSR. Our limited approval of Maryland's SIP revision
of May 13, 2011, as amended on December 20, 2011, ensures that the
Maryland SIP has a permit program for the construction and modification
of electric generating stations as required by Parts C and D of Title I
of the CAA and ensures that the SIP provides for the attainment and
maintenance of the NAAQS. Included in the May 13, 2011 proposed SIP
revision is section 7-208(f) of the Md. Code Ann. which specifically
requires the PSC to include in CPCNs the requirements of federal and
state environmental laws and standards as identified by MDE. EPA's
limited approval ensures the Maryland SIP is adequate to prevent
significant deterioration of air quality in areas designated as
attainment or unclassifiable as required by sections 110(a) and 161 of
the CAA, 42 U.S.C. sections 7410(a) and 7471, and 40 CFR 51.166. EPA's
limited approval of the Maryland permitting program for electric
generating stations also ensures that the Maryland SIP meets plan
requirements for nonattainment areas as required by Part D of Title I
of the CAA. Because the provisions in the May 13, 2011 SIP submission,
as amended on December 20, 2011, strengthen the Maryland SIP, EPA
limitedly approves them into the Maryland SIP.

III. Limited Approval

Why is EPA granting only ``Limited Approval'' of Maryland's
preconstruction program for electric generating stations for the
Maryland SIP?

    In general, EPA has determined that MDE's May 13, 2011 submission
(11-01), as amended by MDE's December 20, 2011 letter removing
COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>, strengthens Maryland's SIP by containing a permit
program as required by Parts C and D of Title I of the CAA. However, we
acknowledge that for the reasons stated below, the May 13, 2011
submission (as amended on December 20, 2011) does not fully meet all
CAA requirements for SIPs. Therefore, EPA is granting limited approval
in accordance with section 110(k) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. section
7410(k).

A. Completeness Determinations

    The May 13, 2011 Maryland SIP submission, as amended December 20,
2011, does not contain a requirement for the PSC to conduct
completeness determinations for CPCN applications. Pursuant to 40 CFR
51.166(q)(1), a state SIP must require the permitting authority ``to
notify all applicants within a specified time period as to the
completeness of the application or any deficiency in the application or
information submitted.'' See 40 CFR 51.166(q)(1). However, as discussed
more thoroughly in EPA's Response to Comments in Section IV below, we
believe the PSC is complying with this requirement in its practice for
issuing

CPCNs such that the impact on CPCN applicants is minimized.

B. Permit Documents in One Location for Public Access

    The May 13, 2011 Maryland SIP submission, as amended December 20,
2011, does not contain a requirement for the PSC to make available for
public inspection in one location the documents from a CPCN applicant
and the reviewing agency's analysis of the effect on air quality from
the proposed construction or modification at an electric generating
station. Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.161(a) and (b)(1), a state SIP shall
provide for the ``[a]vailability for public inspection in at least one
location in the area affected of the information submitted by the owner
or operator and of the State or local agency's analysis of the effect
on air quality.'' See 40 CFR 51.161(a) and (b)(1). As discussed more
thoroughly in EPA's Response to Comments in Section IV below, EPA
believes the PSC provides in its practice the opportunity for public
review of this information through the availability of such documents
on its Web site. Therefore, the impact on the public's opportunity to
comment meaningfully is minimized. When the PSC amends its regulations
to include the requirements of 40 CFR 51.161(a) and (b)(1) and
51.166(q)(1), MDE may submit the revised regulations for EPA's
consideration for full approval of the permitting program for electric
generating stations in the Maryland SIP.

IV. EPA's Response to Comments Received on the Proposed Action

    EPA received a single set of relevant comments on its August 4,
2011 (76 FR 47090) proposed action to approve revisions to the Maryland
SIP. These comments, provided by the Environmental Integrity Project
(hereinafter referred to as ``the Commenter''), raised concerns with
regard to EPA's August 4, 2011 proposed action. A full set of these
comments is provided in the docket for today's final action. A summary
of the comments and EPA's responses are provided below.
    Generally, the Commenter raised four areas of concern. First, the
Commenter asserts that the proposed revision to the Maryland SIP does
not require compliance with NSR requirements in the CAA. Second, the
Commenter asserts the proposed revision to the Maryland SIP allows the
PSC, the air permitting agency for electric generating stations in
Maryland, to waive or modify regulatory requirements. Third, the
Commenter asserts the proposed Maryland SIP revision does not meet
minimum requirements in the CAA for public participation, does not
protect the public's right to review and comment on draft permits, and
does not require the PSC to respond to comments. Finally, the Commenter
asserts the proposed Maryland SIP revision does not contain formal
requirements for completeness determinations. EPA's response to these
four comments is provided below.
    Comment 1: The Commenter asserts the proposed revision to the
Maryland SIP ``does not clearly and unambiguously mandate compliance
with New Source Review standards under the Clean Air Act.'' The
Commenter cites to section 110(a)(2)(C) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. section
7410(a)(2)(C), which requires SIPs to include a permit program as
required by parts C and D of the CAA for PSD and NSR. The Commenter
also cites to 40 CFR 51.166(j) which includes requirements that SIPs
provide certain requirements, including, but not limited to,
requirements that major stationary sources or major modifications meet
applicable emission limitations under 40 CFR parts 60 and 61 and apply
best available control technology (BACT) for each regulated NSR
pollutant they would have the potential to emit in significant amounts
or for each regulated NSR pollutant for which there is a significant
net emissions increase. The Commenter cites to 40 CFR
51.166(a)(1)(7)(ii) (requiring each SIP to incorporate requirements of
40 CFR 51.166(j)-(r)) and to section 165(a)(2) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C.
section 7475(a)(2), which requires major emitting facilities to receive
permits prior to construction.
    Response 1: EPA does not agree with the Commenter that the Maryland
SIP revision does not meet the above requirements. Section 110(a)(2)(C)
of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. section 7410(a)(2)(C), requires each SIP to
include a permits program as required in parts C and D of the CAA (42
U.S.C. sections 7470-7492 and 7501-7515). 40 CFR 51.166 provides
further details on the requirements for the permits programs. EPA
believes the statutory and regulatory requirements in the May 13, 2011
Maryland SIP submission, as amended December 20, 2011, fulfill the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C) and 165(a)(2) of the CAA and 40
CFR 51.166.
    Pursuant to Md. Code Ann., Public Utilities Cos. sections 7-205 and
7-207, electric generating stations may not be modified or constructed
without receiving prior approvals from the PSC through the PSC's
issuance of a permit which is known as a CPCN. Section 7-207 requires
electric generating stations to obtain CPCNs from the PSC prior to
construction. Section 7-205 requires electric generating stations to
obtain approval from the PSC prior to commencing a modification to the
generating station. ``Approval'' as used in the Maryland statutory
provision (section 7-205) means a CPCN issued pursuant to sections 7-
207 and 7-208. See COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>(4). The Maryland statutory
provisions in sections 7-207 and 7-208 which EPA proposed to include in
the Maryland SIP contain specific requirements for the issuance of
CPCNs. In particular, section 7-208(f)(1) states that the PSC shall
include in each certificate it issues ``(i) the requirements of the
federal and State environmental laws and standards that are identified
by the Department of the Environment; and (ii) the methods and
conditions that the Commission determines are appropriate to comply
with those environmental laws and standards.'' Section 7-208(f)(2)
provides that the PSC ``may not adopt any method or condition under
paragraph (1)(ii) of this subsection that the Department of the
Environment determines is inconsistent with federal and State
environmental laws and standards.''
    The Maryland regulatory provisions EPA is limitedly approving in
the SIP revision further fulfill the Clean Air Act requirements for
SIPs. COMAR <IP_ADDRESS> contains the requirements for applications for
CPCNs and requires applicants for CPCNs to include in CPCN applications
a description of the effect on air quality including the ability of the
applicant to comply with PSD and NSR provisions, a description of the
impact on PSD areas and nonattainment areas, and all information and
forms required by MDE regulations for permits to construct and
operating permits under COMAR 26.11. Further, COMAR 20.79.01 contains
additional requirements for electric generating stations applying for
CPCNs including requirements for when modifications need CPCNs.
    EPA disagrees with the Commenter's claim that the Maryland SIP
revision does not meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.166. EPA believes
the revision meets 40 CFR 51.166 through the statutory and regulatory
requirements identified above. As previously discussed, COMAR
<IP_ADDRESS> requires CPCN applicants to identify relevant requirements
of the CAA. Section 7-208(f) requires inclusion of federal
environmental laws and standards identified by MDE which is the
Maryland environmental agency which implements PSD and NSR as well as
all requirements of the CAA for all sources in Maryland except electric
generating

stations. Because the Maryland SIP as implemented through MDE requires
sources to apply BACT or Lowest Achievable Emissions Rate at COMAR
<IP_ADDRESS> and 26.11.17, because CPCN applicants identify requirements
of the CAA needed for construction or modification projects, and
because the emissions standards and standards of performance under 40
CFR Parts 60 and 61 would be identified by MDE through section 7-
208(f), EPA believes the Maryland SIP revision meets the requirements
of 40 CFR 51.166 as specifically identified by the Commenter, except as
discussed below regarding 40 CFR 51.161(b)(1) and 51.166(q)(1)
(relating to availability of permit documents and completeness
determinations).
    EPA believes that the statutory provisions in sections 7-205, 7-
207, and 7-208 and the regulatory provisions in COMAR 20.79 contain the
required and necessary permits program for PSD and NSR as required in
sections 110(a)(2)(C) and 165(a)(2) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. sections
7410(a)(2)(C) and 7475(a)(2), and by 40 CFR 51.166. The Maryland
provisions included in the SIP revision require CPCNs prior to
construction or modification of electric generating stations. See
sections 7-205, 7-207, and 7-208. In addition, section 7-208(f)
specifically requires the PSC to include in CPCNs federal environmental
requirements identified by MDE. MDE implements the SIP approved PSD and
NSR permit program for sources other than electric generating stations
in Maryland through COMAR <IP_ADDRESS> and 26.11.17.
    Comment 2: The Commenter asserts the proposed revisions to the
Maryland SIP contain a provision which allows the PSC authority to
waive CAA requirements in COMAR 20.79. See COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>. The
Commenter asserts that the CAA requires a SIP to unambiguously require
an applicant for a CPCN to comply with NSR requirements such as BACT.
The Commenter asserts that the PSC has ``extremely broad authority to
waive or modify any of the regulatory provisions in Title 20,
Subchapter 79, which governs the CPCN application process.'' The
Commenter asserts that the letter submitted by the Secretary of MDE to
the Regional Administrator of EPA Region III on July 15, 2011 stating
that MDE would ensure that the PSC does not issue waivers or
modifications not in compliance with the CAA and federal regulations
was not sufficient to serve as a binding requirement on the state to
ensure CPCN applicants comply with NSR requirements. The Commenter
asserts that section 7-208(f) is insufficient to show that NSR
requirements will be included in all CPCNs because section 7-208
``appears to apply only to the construction of an EGU when either (1)
associated overhead transmission lines designed to carry a voltage in
excess of 69,000 volts are also being constructed; or (2) the entity
constructing the EGU is exercising the right of condemnation in
connection therewith.'' See section 7-208(a).
    Response 2: EPA notes that in a December 20, 2011 letter from
Robert M. Summers, Secretary of MDE, to Shawn M. Garvin, Regional
Administrator, EPA Region III, MDE officially withdrew COMAR
<IP_ADDRESS> from MDE's proposal for inclusion in the Maryland SIP. In
taking final action on Maryland's proposed SIP revision, EPA is acting
on the remaining statutes and regulations submitted by Maryland.
Therefore, EPA's limited approval of the PSC permitting program for
electric generating stations does not include COMAR <IP_ADDRESS> and
that provision is not included in the Maryland SIP.
    Nevertheless, EPA disagrees with the Commenter in general on the
waiver issue and believes the Letter from Robert M. Summers, Secretary
of MDE, to Shawn M. Garvin, Regional Administrator, EPA Region III
(July 15, 2011) provides assurances that MDE will ensure that its
sister Maryland agency, the PSC, will include all necessary PSD and NSR
requirements as required by section 7-208(f). EPA believes that the
PSC's waiver authority in COMAR <IP_ADDRESS> is clearly restricted by
the statutory restraint on the PSC's CPCN authority in section 7-208(f)
which provides that the PSC shall include federal environmental laws
and standards identified by MDE in CPCNs. This statutory restraint is
clearly evident from the plain language of the statute. The July 15,
2011 Letter from Robert M. Summers to EPA confirms the statutory
limitation on the PSC's waiver authority. EPA has given considerable
weight to the Summers' July 15, 2011 letter because MDE has expertise
in interpreting Maryland law. Presently, EPA has no reason to believe
the PSC will exercise its waiver authority to issue CPCN's without
environmental requirements identified by MDE contrary to section 7-
208(f). In addition, as of December 20, 2011, the PSC's waiver
authority in COMAR <IP_ADDRESS> was removed from Maryland's proposed SIP
revision and is therefore not included in EPA's limited approval of the
Maryland permitting program for electric generating stations.
Therefore, EPA believes the Maryland SIP revision meets the
requirements of the CAA for the limited approval.
    Additionally, EPA disagrees with the Commenter that section 7-208
does not apply to the construction and modification of all electric
generating stations in Maryland. EPA believes the Commenter's assertion
is contrary to established Maryland case law. Section 7-207 was
originally codified as Maryland Ann. Code, Article 78, section 54A
(1968), and section 7-208 was previously codified as Maryland Ann.
Code, Article 78, section 54B (1971). In Baltimore Gas & Electric Co.
v. Dept. of Health & Mental Hygiene, 284 Md. 216, 225-26 (1979), the
Maryland Court of Appeals interpreted Maryland Ann. Code, Article 78,
sections 54A and 54B as providing a comprehensive plan for the erection
of new power plants. The Maryland Court of Appeals stated section 54A
prohibited construction of a generating station or overhead
transmission line without first obtaining a CPCN and also found that
section 54B (the predecessor of Md. Ann. Code, Public Utilities Co.
section 7-208) simply provided the procedures for obtaining a CPCN
under section 54A (now codified as section 7-207). Id. Likewise, today,
section 7-207 requires CPCNs prior to construction of electric
generating stations, and section 7-208 provides the detailed
requirements for those CPCNs.
    Further, COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>(B)(4) clearly confirms that CPCNs issued
for modification projects would be CPCNs issued pursuant to
requirements in sections 7-207 and 7-208. Because Maryland case law
found that Maryland Ann. Code, Article 78, sections 54A and 54B (now
codified as sections 7-207 and 7-208) apply to construction of
electrical generating stations or transmission lines and because the
Maryland regulations included in the SIP revision state that section 7-
208 applies also to modifications, EPA does not believe the Commenter's
assertion is valid or a correct interpretation of Maryland law.
    Comment 3: The Commenter asserts the proposed Maryland SIP
revisions do not meet minimum standards for public participation set
forth in the CAA and do not protect the public's right to review and
comment on a draft CPCN. The Commenter also states the PSC does not
allow for sufficient time for response to public comments. The
Commenter asserts the proposed SIP revision does not contain a formal
process for ensuring the PSC responds to comments and asserts the
letter from H. Robert Erwin, Jr., General Counsel, PSC, to Robert M.
Summers, Secretary, MDE (January 25, 2011) is inadequate to

establish an independent obligation under the SIP on the PSC to respond
to comments during the CPCN permitting process. The Commenter asserts
that the CAA requires a public hearing and an opportunity for public
comment during the NSR permit process and that the permitting agency
must make available to the public information submitted by the owner or
operator of the applicant as well as the permit agency's analysis of
the effect on air quality and the draft approval in at least one
location. See 40 CFR 51.161(a), 51.161(b), and 51.166(q). The Commenter
states the SIP must provide at least 30 days for public comments. 40
CFR 51.161(b)(2). The Commenter asserts that the Md. Code Ann., Pub.
Util. Cos. section 7-207(d) and related regulations do not meet these
requirements.
    Response 3: EPA agrees with the Commenter that the CAA does require
public participation in NSR permitting, including the right to review
documents. However, EPA disagrees with the Commenter regarding the
proposed Maryland SIP revision because EPA believes the Maryland SIP
revision meets the requirements of the CAA for public participation
with the exception of the requirement for the SIP to require the
permitting agency to make available to the public in at least one
location information submitted by the owner or operator of the
applicant as well as the permit agency's analysis of the effect on air
quality and the draft approval. See 40 CFR 51.161(a) and (b)(1).
    Sections 7-207(c) and (d) and 7-208(d) contain the CAA's public
participation requirements for SIPs. As discussed above, sections 7-207
and 7-208 apply to CPCNs for construction as well as for modification
of electric generating stations. Section 7-207(c) and (d) require the
PSC to provide notice of an application for a CPCN to all interested
persons, to provide an opportunity for public comment, and to hold a
public hearing on the CPCN application. Section 7-207(d) also requires
weekly notice of the public hearing and opportunity for comment in a
newspaper of general circulation in the four weeks prior to a hearing.
Section 7-208(d) requires the PSC to provide notice to all interested
persons upon receipt of an application for a CPCN and to hold a public
hearing as required by section 7-207 upon publication of proper notice.
    However, EPA agrees with the Commenter that a SIP must require the
permitting agency to make available to the public in at least one
location information submitted by the permit applicant as well as the
permit agency's analysis of the effect on air quality and the draft
approval. See 40 CFR 51.161(a) and (b)(1). As explained in this
rulemaking, EPA is granting limited approval to the Maryland SIP
revision until such time as MDE submits a statutory or regulatory
requirement that meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.161(a) and (b)(1).
EPA is granting this limited approval to the Maryland SIP revision
because EPA believes the PSC in practice is providing the public with
full access to the public information submitted by a CPCN applicant as
well as the PSC's and MDE's analysis of the effect on air quality from
an application. All public records relevant to a CPCN application and
the PSC's official actions on those applications are available to the
public for review and download through access to the PSC's publicly
available Web page at http://www.psc.state.md.us/. The purpose of
providing an opportunity for public review is served by this method of
availability such that EPA is granting a limited approval until the PSC
and MDE include such a requirement in a request for SIP revision.
    In addition, we gain additional assurance that the public will have
available for inspection information submitted by a CPCN applicant and
associated PSC analyses through the PSC's statutory obligation to
comply with the Maryland Public Information Act, Md. Code Ann., State
Government sections 10-611 to 10-630. The Maryland Public Information
Act applies to all branches of the Maryland state government and
provides persons the right to review the available records that are
disclosable by the State and the right to obtain copies of those
records. This statute provides that all persons are entitled to access
to information about the affairs of government and the official acts of
public officials and employees. See Maryland Public Information Act,
section 10-612(a). The Maryland Public Information Act permits persons
to inspect public records at any reasonable time within thirty days of
a request and provides a process for persons to challenge the
withholding of public documents. See Maryland Public Information Act,
sections 10-614 and 10-623.
    EPA believes these statutory obligations as well as the practice of
making documents publicly available over the PSC's Web page meet the
intent of the requirements for SIPs in the CAA and in the regulations
at 40 CFR 51.161 and 51.166. Hence, EPA is granting limited approval to
this SIP revision until such time as Maryland submits a statutory or
regulatory requirement meeting 40 CFR 51.161(a) and (b)(1).
    The Commenter also addressed the PSC's obligations to respond to
public comments. In reviewing SIPs submitted for approval, EPA must
follow the requirements in section 110 of the CAA and in 40 CFR 51.161
and 51.166. The Maryland SIP revision meets these requirements. As
discussed above, EPA believes the Maryland SIP revision provides for
public hearings for CPCNs and an opportunity for public comment as
required by section 165(a)(2) of the CAA and 40 CFR 51.161. The PSC in
its practice makes available to the public all information including
the CPCN application as required by 40 CFR 51.161(a) and (b) and
51.166(q) through complying with Md. Code Ann., Public Utilities Cos.
sections 7-207 and 7-208 and complying with its statutory mandate in
the Maryland Public Information Law. In addition, the PSC provides
further public access to documents relevant to CPCN obligations via its
publically-available docket on the PSC's Web site. While the Maryland
Public Information Law and the PSC's Web site are not included in the
SIP revision, EPA believes that the PSC is obligated to act in
accordance with these obligations and that the PSC's practice in using
the Web site strengthens public participation.
    If these public access provisions and policies were to be repealed
or substantially changed, EPA would reevaluate the limited approval of
the SIP revision.
    EPA reviews SIPs for their compliance with requirements in the CAA
and in the implementing regulations. EPA agrees with the Commenter that
responding to comments is essential to ensuring adequate public
participation. However, EPA disagrees with the Commenter that the
Maryland provisions for electric generating stations are not SIP
approvable. EPA has previously stated that adequate public
participation and comment requires air permitting agencies to address
and respond to public comment. See In the Matter of Onyx Environmental
Services, Petition V-2005-1 at 7 (February 1, 2006) (citing Home Box
Office v. FCC, 567 F.2d 9, 35 (DC Cir. 1977) (stating ``the opportunity
to comment is meaningless unless the agency responds to significant
points raised by the public''). See also In the Matter of Citgo
Refining and Chemicals Co. L.P., Petition VI-2007-01 at 7 (May 28,
2009) (stating permitting authorities have a responsibility to respond
to significant comments); In the Matter of Kerr-McGee Gathering, LLC,
Petition VIII-2007 at 4; In the Matter of Wheelabrator, Baltimore L.P.,
Permit 24-510-01-886 at 7 (April 14, 2010).

EPA believes an essential correlative in taking public comment on
permits is responding to those comments such that an adequate record of
the permit issuer's rationale is created. Responding to public comments
ensures meaningful public participation in permitting as intended by
the Clean Air Act.
    In response to EPA's concerns regarding the PSC's responding to
comments on CPCN applications, the General Counsel for the PSC did
state in his January 25, 2011 letter to EPA referred to previously that
interested persons would be able to raise to a PSC Hearing Examiner,
during a prehearing scheduling conference which is part of the CPCN
review process, any failure by the PSC to respond to public comments
and the need for adequate time for the PSC to respond to comments in a
scheduling order. See Robert Erwin's January 25, 2011 letter to MDE. In
addition, the PSC's General Counsel stated that the failure to respond
to comments could be brought to the PSC's attention before a CPCN
becomes final during the CPCN approval hearing process. Id. EPA
believes the commitment to respond to comments from the PSC's General
Counsel as evidenced in the General Counsel's January 25, 2011 letter
satisfies EPA's concerns that the PSC will respond to public comments
on CPCN applications. EPA believes the Maryland SIP revision provides
for full public participation as required by sections 110 and 165 of
the CAA and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR 51.161 and 51.166
(with the exception of providing public access to documents in one
location as discussed above). See id.
    Comment 4: Finally, the Commenter asserts that the proposed
Maryland SIP revision does not contain a requirement that the permit
reviewing authority (the PSC) shall notify all permit applicants within
a specified time period as to the completeness of the permit
application or any deficiency in the application as required in 40 CFR
51.166(q)(1).
    Response 4: EPA agrees with the Commenter that the Maryland SIP
revision does not formally contain a requirement directly meeting 40
CFR 51.166(q)(1). EPA is granting limited approval to the PSC
permitting program in the Maryland SIP until Maryland submits a
regulation meeting 40 CFR 51.166(q)(1) (as well as 40 CFR 51.161(a) and
(b)(1) as discussed previously). However, EPA has granted limited
approval because EPA is satisfied that the PSC is meeting this
requirement in practice. EPA believes the revised Maryland SIP as
implemented by the PSC will appropriately address CPCN completeness
determinations. According to 40 CFR 51.166(q)(1), a SIP shall provide
that the ``reviewing authority shall notify all applicants within a
specified time period as to the completeness of the application or any
deficiency in the application or information submitted.'' EPA believes
the General Counsel's January 25, 2011 letter addresses this issue. See
Robert Erwin's January 25, 2011 letter to MDE. The PSC's General
Counsel stated in the January 25, 2011 letter that parties should raise
the issue of completeness determinations with the PSC Hearing Examiner
at the Prehearing Scheduling Conference which is held during the CPCN
application review process. The General Counsel stated that the PSC's
Hearing Examiner for each CPCN application would hear argument and make
a determination as to completeness of applications and subsequently
either order an incomplete CPCN application be supplemented or make a
finding on the record that a CPCN application was complete. See id. We
believe the PSC provides adequate opportunities during the CPCN
application process for parties to raise the issue of incomplete CPCN
applications.
    In addition, the statutory and regulatory provisions in the
proposed Maryland SIP revision support EPA's belief that the PSC will
act on completeness determinations. Pursuant to section 7-205(d), the
PSC must render a decision on a CPCN application within 150 days of the
filing of the CPCN application. See Md. Code Ann., Public Util. Cos.
section 7-205(d). In addition, section 7-207(d) provides the
requirements for the PSC to hold public hearings on CPCN applications,
and section 7-208(e) follows along with the requirements in section 7-
207(d) by requiring the PSC to grant or deny CPCN applications within
90 days of the conclusion of the hearings on the CPCN applications.
Finally, the PSC's implementing regulations at COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>,
require the PSC to impose a schedule of procedural dates to ensure
timely completion of the CPCN application process. Reading these
statutory and regulatory provisions together with the PSC General
Counsel's January 25, 2011 letter, EPA believes the Maryland SIP
revision together with the PSC's implementation as described above
satisfies the intent of 40 CFR 51.166(q)(1) sufficient for EPA to
provide limited approval to the Maryland SIP revision until Maryland
submits a regulation from the PSC for SIP approval formally addressing
the requirements of 40 CFR 51.166(q)(1).
    Furthermore, EPA believes the requirements of 40 CFR 51.166(q)(1)
are intended to protect the interests of permit applicants in receiving
timely review of permit applications. EPA does not believe that the
Commenter is adversely affected by the PSC's failure to do a
completeness determination on a particular CPCN. EPA has no reason to
believe that the PSC is not conducting completeness determinations as
discussed by the PSC's General Counsel and has received no adverse
comment on this issue from the regulated and impacted community of
electric generating stations.
    Finally, EPA notes that the Commenter included additional
statements in its Comments relating to CPCNs issued previously by the
PSC and the federal enforceability of those CPCNs. To the extent that
these comments do not relate to the Maryland SIP revision and are not
relevant to EPA's limited approval of the SIP revision, EPA is not
responding to those Comments here.

V. Final Action

    EPA is granting limited approval in accordance with section 110(k)
of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. section 7410(k), of MDE's May 13, 2011 SIP
submission (11-01), as amended on December 20, 2011 with the
removal of COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>, because the submission as amended
strengthens Maryland's SIP. When the PSC adopts amended regulations
which meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.161(a) and (b)(1) and
51.166(q)(1), MDE may request full SIP approval of the permitting
program for construction and modification of electric generating
stations in Maryland.

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 Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

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. 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).

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 April 10, 2012. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action.
    This action pertaining to preconstruction requirements for Electric
Generating Stations in Maryland 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: January 31, 2012.
W.C. Early,
Acting, Regional Administrator, Region III.
    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart V--Maryland

0
2. In Sec.  52.1070, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by:
0
a. Revising the heading of the table.
0
b. Revising the existing entries for COMAR <IP_ADDRESS> and <IP_ADDRESS>.
0
c. Adding entries for COMAR 20.79.01, 20.79.02 and 20.79.03 in
numerical order after the existing entry for COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>.
0
d. Adding new entries for ``Public Utility Companies Article of the
Annotated Code of Maryland'' at the end of the table.
    The amendments read as follows:

Sec.  52.1070  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c)* * *

                 EPA-Approved Regulations, Technical Memoranda, and Statutes in the Maryland SIP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Additional
 Code of Maryland administrative                             State                               explanation/
   regulations (COMAR) citation       Title/subject     effective date   EPA approval date    citation at 40 CFR
                                                                                52.1100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 26.11.02 Permits, Approvals, and Registrations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<IP_ADDRESS>......................  Sources Subject to         11/16/09  2/10/12 [Insert      Revised
                                    Permits to                           page number where    <IP_ADDRESS>A(1),
                                    Construct and                        the document         (2); limited
                                    Approvals.                           begins].             approval.
<IP_ADDRESS>......................  Sources Exempt from        11/16/09  2/10/12 [Insert      Revised
                                    Permits to                           page number where    <IP_ADDRESS>A;
                                    Construct and                        the document         limited approval.
                                    Approvals.                           begins].

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

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      20.79.01 Applications Concerning the Construction or Modification of Generating Stations and Overhead
                                           Transmission Lines--General
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<IP_ADDRESS>A, .01C, and .01D.....  Scope..............        12/28/09  2/10/12 [Insert      Added; limited
                                                                         page number where    approval.
                                                                         the document
                                                                         begins].
<IP_ADDRESS>A and .02B(1) through   Definitions........        12/28/09  2/10/12 [Insert      Added; limited
 (13), (14)(a), (15), (16), and                                          page number where    approval.
 (18) through (20).                                                      the document
                                                                         begins].
<IP_ADDRESS>......................  Modifications to           12/28/09  2/10/12 [Insert      Added; limited
                                    Facilities at a                      page number where    approval.
                                    Power Plant.                         the document
                                                                         begins].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      20.79.02 Applications Concerning the Construction or Modification of Generating Stations and Overhead
                                  Transmission Lines--Administrative Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<IP_ADDRESS>......................  Form of Application         2/10/97  2/10/12 [Insert      Added; limited
                                                                         page number where    approval.
                                                                         the document
                                                                         begins].
<IP_ADDRESS>......................  Distribution of            2/10/97;  2/10/12 [Insert      Added; limited
                                    Application.               11/8/04   page number where    approval.
                                                                         the document
                                                                         begins].
<IP_ADDRESS>......................  Proceedings on the         2/10/97;  2/10/12 [Insert      Added; Limited
                                    Application.               11/8/04   page number where    approval.
                                                                         the document
                                                                         begins].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      20.79.03 Applications Concerning the Construction or Modification of Generating Stations and Overhead
                     Transmission Lines--Details of Filing Requirements--Generating Stations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<IP_ADDRESS>......................  Description of             2/10/97;  2/10/12 [Insert      Added; limited
                                    Generating Station.        11/8/04   page number where    approval.
                                                                         the document
                                                                         begins].
<IP_ADDRESS>A and .02B(1) and (2).  Environmental              2/10/97;  2/10/12 [Insert      Added; limited
                                    Information.               11/8/04   page number where    approval.
                                                                         the document
                                                                         begins].

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Annotated Code of Maryland        Title/subject          State       EPA approval date        Additional
             citation                                   effective date                           explanation/
                                                                                citation at 40 CFR
                                                                                52.1100
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Public Utility Companies Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 7-205....................  Electric Companies--        7/01/06  2/10/12 [Insert      Added; limited
                                    Modification of                      page number where    approval.
                                    Power Plant.                         the document
                                                                         begins].
Section 7-207(a), (b)(1), (c),     Generating Stations         7/01/07  2/10/12 [Insert      Added; limited
 (d), and (e).                      or Transmission                      page number where    approval.
                                    Lines--General                       the document
                                    Certification                        begins].
                                    Procedure.
Section 7-207.1(a) and (e).......  Generating Stations         7/01/07  2/10/12 [Insert      Added; limited
                                    or Transmission                      page number where    approval.
                                    Lines--Onsite                        the document
                                    Generated                            begins].
                                    Electricity;
                                    Approval Process.
Section 7-208 (a)(1), (b) through  Generating Stations         7/01/01  2/10/12 [Insert      Added; limited
 (f), and (h)(2).                   or Transmission                      page number where    approval.
                                    Lines--Joint                         the document
                                    Construction of                      begins].
                                    Station and
                                    Associated Lines.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2012-2984 Filed 2-9-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:This document concerns pages 1508 through 1721 of BMI France response to an information collection request.


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 27 (Monday, February 10, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7491-7494]
[FR Doc No: 2020-02504]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2019-0305; FRL-10005-29-Region 4]

Air Plan Approval; Tennessee; Chattanooga Miscellaneous Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a revision to the Chattanooga portion of the Tennessee State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the State of Tennessee through
the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) on
behalf of the Chattanooga/Hamilton County Air Pollution Control Bureau
(Bureau) on September 12, 2018. The SIP submittal removes and replaces
the Chattanooga City Code, Air Pollution Control Ordinances pertaining
to the Chattanooga-Hamilton County Air Pollution Control Board (Board),
powers and duties of the Board, penalties, enforcement and permit fees.
The SIP revision that EPA is proposing to approve is consistent with
the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 2, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2019-0305 at www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions
for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or
removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment received to
its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Lakeman, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air and
Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is
(404) 562-9043. Mr. Lakeman can also be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Through a letter dated September 12, 2018, TDEC submitted a SIP
revision on behalf of the Bureau requesting removal and replacement of
certain air quality rules in the Chattanooga portion of the Tennessee
SIP.1 2 This rulemaking proposes to approve the Chattanooga
City Code Part II, Chapter 4, Section 4-4, ``Penalties for violation of
chapter, permit or order,'' \3\ Section 4-6, ``Air pollution control
board; bureau of air pollution control; persons required to comply with
chapter,'' \4\ Section 4-7,

``Powers and duties of the board; delegation,'' \5\ Paragraphs 4-
8(a)(14), 4-8(c)(12), 4-8(d)(4) and 4-8(d)(6) in Section 4-8,
``Installation permit and certificate of operation,'' \6\ Paragraph 4-
10(a), ``Records,'' \7\ and Section 4-17, ``Enforcement of chapter;
procedure for adjudicatory hearings for violations'' into the
Chattanooga portion of the Tennessee SIP.8 9 Tennessee's
September 12, 2018, SIP revision can be found in the docket for this
rulemaking at www.regulations.gov and is further summarized in this
notice.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Bureau is comprised of Hamilton County and the
municipalities of Chattanooga, Collegedale, East Ridge, Lakesite,
Lookout Mountain, Red Bank, Ridgeside, Signal Mountain, Soddy Daisy,
and Walden. The Bureau recommends regulatory revisions, which are
subsequently adopted by the eleven jurisdictions. The Bureau then
implements and enforces the regulations, as necessary, in each
jurisdiction. Because the air pollution control regulations/
ordinances adopted by the jurisdictions within the Bureau are
substantively identical (except as noted later in this notice), EPA
refers solely to Chattanooga and the Chattanooga rules throughout
the notice as representative of the other ten jurisdictions for
brevity and simplicity. See footnotes 3 through 8, later in this
notice.
    \2\ EPA received the SIP revision on September 18, 2018.
    \3\ In this proposed action, EPA is also proposing to approve
similar changes in the following sections of the Air Pollution
Control Regulations/Ordinances for the remaining jurisdictions
within the Bureau, which were locally effective as of the relevant
dates below: Hamilton County--Section 4 (9/6/17); City of
Collegedale--Section 14-304 (10/16/17); City of East Ridge--Section
8-4 (10/26/17); City of Lakesite--Section 14-4 (11/2/17); Town of
Lookout Mountain--Section 4 (11/14/17); City of Red Bank--Section
20-4 (11/21/17); City of Ridgeside--Section 4 (1/16/18); City of
Signal Mountain--Section 4 (10/20/17); City of Soddy-Daisy--Section
8-4 (10/5/17); and Town of Walden--Section 4 (10/16/17). The only
substantive difference between the various jurisdictions'
regulations is that Chattanooga Ordinance Part II, Chapter 4,
Section 4-4 contains an additional sentence regarding fines and
fees, which is discussed later in this notice.
    \4\ In this proposed action, EPA is also proposing to approve
substantively similar changes in the following sections of the Air
Pollution Control Regulations/Ordinances for the remaining
jurisdictions within the Bureau, which were locally effective as of
the relevant dates below: Hamilton County--Section 6 (9/6/17); City
of Collegedale--Section 14-306 (10/16/17); City of East Ridge--
Section 8-6 (10/26/17); City of Lakesite--Section 14-6 (11/2/17);
Town of Lookout Mountain--Section 6 (11/14/17); City of Red Bank--
Section 20-6 (11/21/17); City of Ridgeside--Section 6 (1/16/18);
City of Signal Mountain--Section 6 (10/20/17); City of Soddy-Daisy--
Section 8-6 (10/5/17); and Town of Walden--Section 6 (10/16/17).
    \5\ In this proposed action, EPA is also proposing to approve
substantively similar changes in the following sections of the Air
Pollution Control Regulations/Ordinances for the remaining
jurisdictions within the Bureau, which were locally effective as of
the relevant dates below: Hamilton County--Section 7 (9/6/17); City
of Collegedale--Section 14-307 (10/16/17); City of East Ridge--
Section 8-7 (10/26/17); City of Lakesite--Section 14-7 (11/2/17);
Town of Lookout Mountain--Section 7 (11/14/17); City of Red Bank--
Section 20-7 (11/21/17); City of Ridgeside--Section 7 (1/16/18);
City of Signal Mountain--Section 7 (10/20/17); City of Soddy-Daisy--
Section 8-7 (10/5/17); and Town of Walden--Section 7 (10/16/17).
    \6\ In this proposed action, EPA is also proposing to approve
substantively similar changes in the following sections of the Air
Pollution Control Regulations/Ordinances for the remaining
jurisdictions within the Bureau, which were locally effective as of
the relevant dates below: Hamilton County--Section 8 (9/6/17); City
of Collegedale--Section 14-308 (10/16/17); City of East Ridge--
Section 8-8 (10/26/17); City of Lakesite--Section 14-8 (11/2/17);
Town of Lookout Mountain--Section 8 (11/14/17); City of Red Bank--
Section 20-8 (11/21/17); City of Ridgeside--Section 8 (1/16/18);
City of Signal Mountain--Section 8 (10/20/17); City of Soddy-Daisy--
Section 8-8 (10/5/17); and Town of Walden--Section 8 (10/16/17).
    \7\ In this proposed action, EPA is also proposing to approve
substantively similar changes in the following sections of the Air
Pollution Control Regulations/Ordinances for the remaining
jurisdictions within the Bureau, which were locally effective as of
the relevant dates below: Hamilton County--Section 10 (9/6/17); City
of Collegedale--Section 14-310 (10/16/17); City of East Ridge--
Section 8-10 (10/26/17); City of Lakesite--Section 14-10 (11/2/17);
Town of Lookout Mountain--Section 10 (11/14/17); City of Red Bank--
Section 20-10 (11/21/17); City of Ridgeside--Section 10 (1/16/18);
City of Signal Mountain--Section 10 (10/20/17); City of Soddy-
Daisy--Section 8-10 (10/5/17); and Town of Walden--Section 10 (10/
16/17).
    \8\ In this proposed action, EPA is also proposing to approve
similar changes in the following sections of the Air Pollution
Control Regulations/Ordinances for the remaining jurisdictions
within the Bureau, which were locally effective as of the relevant
dates below: Hamilton County--Section 17 (9/6/17); City of
Collegedale--Section 14-17 (10/16/17); City of East Ridge--Section
8-17 (10/26/17); City of Lakesite--Section 14-17 (11/2/17); Town of
Lookout Mountain--Section 17 (11/14/17); City of Red Bank--Section
20-17 (11/21/17); City of Ridgeside--Section 17 (1/16/18); City of
Signal Mountain--Section 17 (10/20/17); City of Soddy-Daisy--Section
8-17 (10/5/17); and Town of Walden--Section 17 (10/16/17). The only
substantive difference between the various jurisdictions'
regulations is that Chattanooga City Code Part II, Chapter 4,
Section 4-17 contains an additional paragraph concerning citation of
violators to municipal court, which is discussed below.
    \9\ EPA received other revisions to the Chattanooga portion of
the Tennessee SIP transmitted with the same September 12, 2018,
cover letter. EPA will be considering action for those other SIP
revisions in a separate rulemaking.
    \10\ Tennessee requested that EPA remove and replace rules 4-4,
4-6, 4-7, 4-8(a)(14), 4-8(c)(12), 4-8(d)(4), 4-8(d)(6), 4-10(a), and
4-17 in their entirety and provided a redline/strikeout. The
redline/strikeout does not show all the differences between the
federally-approved SIP version of rules 4-4, 4-6, 4-7, 4-8(a)(14),
4-8(c)(12), 4-8(d)(4), 4-8(d)(6), 4-10(a), 4-17 and the version
locally effective on October 3, 2017. EPA's evaluation is of the
removal and replacement of rules 4-4, 4-6, 4-7, 4-8(a)(14), 4-
8(c)(12), 4-8(d)(4), 4-8(d)(6), 4-10(a), and 4-17 in their entirety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. EPA's Analysis of Tennessee's SIP Revision

    EPA evaluated several sections of the Chattanooga city code under
the CAA. As discussed later in this notice, the September 12, 2018, SIP
submission removes and replaces the Chattanooga city code Part II,
Chapter 4, Section 4-4, ``Penalties for violation of chapter, permit or
order,'' Section 4-6, ``Air pollution control board; bureau of air
pollution control; persons required to comply with chapter,'' Section
4-7, ``Powers and duties of the board; delegation,'' Paragraphs 4-
8(a)(14), 4-8(c)(12), 4-8(d)(4) and 4-8(d)(6) in Section 4-8,
``Installation permit and certificate of operation,'' Paragraph 4-
10(a), ``Records,'' and Section 4-17, ``Enforcement of chapter;
procedure for adjudicatory hearings for violations'' into the
Chattanooga portion of the Tennessee SIP. The changes are related to
the Board's administrative functions in general and do not impact
emissions. As discussed in greater detail later in this notice, the
removal and replacement of these rule provisions will not interfere
with attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS or any other requirement of
the Act.

A. Section 4-4, ``Penalties for violation of chapter, permit or order''

    Tennessee's September 12, 2018, SIP revision includes a request to
remove and replace Section 4-4, ``Penalties for violation of chapter,
permit or order'' of the Chattanooga-Hamilton County portion of the
Tennessee SIP. Section 4-4 governs penalties for any person who
violates or fails to comply with any provision of Chattanooga City Code
Chapter 4, or any order of the Board or of the director; or who makes
false material statement, representation, or certification in, or omits
material information from, any record, report, plan or other document
required either to be filed or submitted or maintained pursuant to the
chapter; or who falsifies, tampers with, renders inaccurate, or fails
to install any monitoring device or method required to be maintained or
followed under the chapter; or fails to pay a fee established under the
chapter.\11\ EPA has reviewed Section 4-4 and preliminarily finds the
provision to be consistent with the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ As discussed above, the last sentence in Paragraph 4-4(a),
regarding a fee of $50 if cited under Chapter 4, is not included in
the regulations from the other jurisdictions this action proposes to
approve. See note 3. However, as this addition serves to strengthen
the SIP and is not required by the CAA, similar language in the
other jurisdictions' regulations is not necessary. Accordingly, EPA
is proposing to approve all 11 jurisdictions' regulations identified
in footnote 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The current SIP-approved version of Section 4-4 also governed
penalties for any person who violates or fails to comply with any
provision of the Chattanooga City Code Chapter 4, or any order of the
Board or of the director; or who makes false material statement,
representation, or certification in, or omits material information
from, any record, report, plan or other document required either to be
filed or submitted or maintained pursuant to the chapter; or who
falsifies, tampers with, renders inaccurate, or fails to install any
monitoring device or method required to be maintained or followed under
the chapter; or fails to pay a fee established under the chapter.
Chattanooga requested that EPA approve the version of the rule
submitted in the September 12, 2018, SIP revision in its entirety to
ensure the federally-approved version and the local version are
consistent. EPA does not anticipate that removal of the current SIP-
approved version of section 4-4 and replacement with the version
locally effective on October 3, 2017, will lead to a change in
emissions. EPA is therefore proposing to conclude that the removal and
replacement will not interfere with the attainment or maintenance of
air quality standards.
    EPA has reviewed the changes to the SIP and is proposing to approve
the version of section 4-4 locally effective on October 3, 2017, into
the SIP.

B. Section 4-6, ``Air pollution control board; bureau of air pollution
control; persons required to comply with chapter''

    Tennessee's September 12, 2018, SIP revision includes a request to
remove and replace Section 4-6, ``Air pollution control board; bureau
of air pollution

control; persons required to comply with chapter'' of the Chattanooga-
Hamilton County portion of the Tennessee SIP. Chattanooga Rule 4-6
establishes the Board and governs the constituency of the Board,
outlines roles and responsibilities, and explains how vacancies are
filled among other general operational procedures and expectations
related to the Board. EPA has reviewed Section 4-6 and preliminarily
finds the provision to be consistent with the CAA.
    The current SIP-approved version of Section 4-6 also established
the Board and governed the constituency of the Board, outlines roles
and responsibilities, and explains how vacancies are filled among other
general operational procedures and expectations related to the Board.
Chattanooga requested that EPA approve the version of the rule in the
September 12, 2018, SIP revision in its entirety to ensure the
federally-approved version and the local version are consistent. EPA
does not anticipate that removal of the current SIP-approved version of
section 4-6 and replacement with the version locally effective on
October 3, 2017, will lead to a change in emissions. EPA is therefore
proposing to conclude that the removal and replacement will not
interfere with the attainment or maintenance of air quality standards.
    EPA has reviewed the changes to the SIP and is proposing to approve
the version of section 4-6 locally effective on October 3, 2017, into
the SIP.

C. Section 4-7, ``Powers and duties of the board; delegation''

    Tennessee's September 12, 2018, SIP revision includes a request to
remove and replace Section 4-7, ``Powers and duties of the board;
delegation'' of the Chattanooga-Hamilton County portion of the
Tennessee SIP. Chattanooga Rule 4-7 governs the powers and duties of
the Board, and also provides for delegation of the powers to the
Director of the Board (Director), and through him the personnel of the
Bureau. EPA has reviewed Section 4-7 and preliminarily finds the
provision to be consistent with the CAA.
    The current SIP-approved version of Section 4-7 also governed the
powers and duties of the Board, and delegation. Chattanooga requested
that EPA approve the version of the rule submitted in the September 12,
2018, SIP revision in its entirety to ensure the federally-approved
version and the local version are consistent. EPA does not anticipate
that removal of the current SIP-approved version of section 4-7 and
replacement with the version locally effective on October 3, 2017, will
lead to a change in emissions. EPA is therefore proposing to conclude
that the removal and replacement will not interfere with the attainment
or maintenance of air quality standards.
    EPA has reviewed the changes to the SIP and is proposing to approve
the version of section 4-7 locally effective on October 3, 2017, into
the SIP.

D. Section 4-8, ``Installation permit and certificate of operation''

    Tennessee's September 12, 2018, SIP revision includes a request to
remove and replace Paragraphs 4-8(a)(14), 4-8(c)(12), 4-8(d)(4), and 4-
8(d)(6) of the Chattanooga-Hamilton County portion of the Tennessee
SIP. These paragraphs address to whom permit fees apply and the permit
fee schedules. EPA has reviewed Paragraphs 4-8(a)(14), 4-8(c)(12), 4-
8(d)(4), and 4-8(d)(6) and preliminarily finds the provisions to be
consistent with the CAA.
    EPA does not anticipate that removal of the current SIP-approved
version of Paragraphs 4-8(a)(16), 4-8(c)(5), 4-8(d)(5), and 4-8(d)(8)
\12\ and replacement with the version locally effective on October 3,
2017, will lead to a change in emissions. EPA is therefore proposing to
conclude that the removal and replacement will not interfere with the
attainment or maintenance of air quality standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ There have been intervening numbering changes to the local
regulations since section 4-8 was last approved into the
Chattanooga-Hamilton County portion of the Tennessee SIP. See 62 FR
7163 (February 18, 1997). Thus, Paragraphs 4-8(a)(14), 4-8(c)(12),
4-8(d)(4), and 4-8(d)(6) locally effective October 3, 2017, will
replace the previously approved Paragraphs 4-8(a)(16), 4-8(c)(5), 4-
8(d)(5), and 4-8(d)(8), respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Paragraph 4-10(a), ``Records''

    Tennessee's September 12, 2018, SIP revision includes a request to
remove and replace Paragraph 4-10(a), ``Records'' of the Chattanooga-
Hamilton County portion of the Tennessee SIP. Chattanooga Rule 4-10(a)
addresses records kept by the Bureau. It requires the Bureau to keep
records of applications, permits, and certificates, as well as all
official business of the Bureau generally. This section requires the
Director to keep records pertaining to permitted facilities in
perpetuity but allows the Director to destroy records pertaining to
shutdown facilities after seven years and other records after seven
years unless federal requirements provide for a shorter retention
period. EPA notes that Tennessee has record retention statutes,
regulations, and policies at the state level that require certain
records to be kept on a permanent basis, such as agency rule adoption
files. See Tenn. Code Ann. Sec.  4-5-222, Tennessee Records Disposition
Authorization SW 40. The Chattanooga rule also requires that records be
open for inspection, with some limitations for certain confidential
documents. EPA has reviewed Paragraph 4-10(a) and preliminarily finds
the provision to be consistent with the CAA.
    The current SIP-approved version of Paragraph 4-10(a) also governed
records retention policies by the Bureau. Chattanooga requested that
EPA approve the version of the rule submitted in the September 12,
2018, SIP revision in its entirety to ensure the federally-approved
version and the local version are consistent. EPA does not anticipate
that removal of the current SIP-approved version of Paragraph 4-10(a)
and replacement with the version locally effective on October 3, 2017,
will lead to a change in emissions. EPA is therefore proposing to
conclude that the removal and replacement will not interfere with the
attainment or maintenance of air quality standards.
    EPA has reviewed the changes to the SIP and is proposing to approve
the version of section 4-10(a) locally effective on October 3, 2017,
into the SIP.

F. Section 4-17, ``Enforcement of chapter; procedure for adjudicatory
hearings for violations''

    Tennessee's September 12, 2018, SIP revision includes a request to
remove and replace Section 4-17, ``Enforcement of chapter; procedure
for adjudicatory hearings for violations'' of the Chattanooga-Hamilton
County portion of the Tennessee SIP. Chattanooga Rule 4-17 governs the
enforcement of Chapter 4 of the Chattanooga City Code and outlines the
procedure for adjudicatory hearings for violations.\13\ EPA has
reviewed Section 4-17 and preliminarily finds the provision to be
consistent with the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ As discussed above, Paragraph 4-17(d), regarding citation
to municipal court, is not included in the regulations from the
other jurisdictions this action proposes to approve. See note 8.
However, as this addition serves to strengthen the SIP and is not
required by the CAA, similar language in the other jurisdictions'
regulations is not necessary. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to
approve all 11 jurisdictions' regulations identified in footnote 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The current SIP-approved version of Section 4-17 also governed the
enforcement of Chapter 4 of the Chattanooga City Code and outlines the
procedure for adjudicatory hearings for violations. Chattanooga
requested that EPA approve the version of the rule submitted in the
September 12, 2018, SIP revision in its entirety to ensure the
federally-approved version and the local

version are consistent. EPA does not anticipate that removal of the
current SIP-approved version of section 4-17 and replacement with the
version locally effective on October 3, 2017, will lead to increased
emissions. EPA is therefore proposing to conclude that the removal and
replacement will not interfere with the attainment or maintenance of
air quality standards.
    EPA has reviewed the changes to the SIP and is proposing to approve
the version of section 4-17 locally effective on October 3, 2017, into
the SIP.

III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference the following changes to Chattanooga City Code Chapter 4 of
Part II, locally effective on October 3, 2017: Section 4-4, ``Penalties
for violation of chapter, permit or order;'' Section 4-6, ``Air
pollution control board; bureau of air pollution control; persons
required to comply with chapter;'' Section 4-7, ``Powers and duties of
the board; delegation;'' Paragraphs 4-8(a)(14), 4-8(c)(12), 4-8(d)(4)
and 4-8(d)(6) in Section 4-8, ``Installation permit and certificate of
operation;'' Paragraph 4-10(a), ``Records;'' and Section 4-17,
``Enforcement of chapter; procedure for adjudicatory hearings for
violations.'' \14\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ EPA's approval also includes regulations/ordinances
submitted for the other ten jurisdictions within the Bureau. See
footnotes 3 through 8, above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the removal and replacement in the
entirety of the following rules in the Chattanooga-Hamilton County
portion of the Tennessee SIP with the version of the rules submitted on
September 12, 2018: Chapter 4, Section 4-4, ``Penalties for violation
of chapter, permit or order,'' Section 4-6, ``Air pollution control
board; bureau of air pollution control; persons required to comply with
chapter,'' Section 4-7, ``Powers and duties of the board; delegation,''
Paragraphs 4-8(a)(14), 4-8(c)(12), 4-8(d)(4) and 4-8(d)(6) in Section
4-8,\15\ ``Installation permit and certificate of operation,''
Paragraph 4-10(a), ``Records,'' and Section 4-17, ``Enforcement of
chapter; procedure for adjudicatory hearings for violations.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See footnote 12 regarding the paragraphs that EPA is
proposing to remove.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. 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 proposed action
merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements
and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. For that reason, this proposed 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.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations.

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

    Dated: January 31, 2020.
Mary S. Walker,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2020-02504 Filed 2-7-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


                 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                                  REGION III
            1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania  19103-2029

DATE:  8/14/12

SUBJECT:  West Virginia State Implementation Plan (SIP), 45 CSR 8- Ambient Air Quality Standards

FROM:  Asrah Khadr

TO:  File

      On February 22, 2012 (77 FR 10423), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) regarding the incorporation by reference of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter (PM), carbon monoxide (CO), ozone, nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and lead into 45 CSR 8- Ambient Air Quality Standards.  An adverse comment was received regarding the removal of section 2 of 45 CSR 8, The Anti-Degradation Policy.  The Anti-Degradation Policy was added by West Virginia in the 1970s as a placeholder, until West Virginia developed its Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting program in the 1980s.  The removal of The Anti-Degradation Policy does not relax the West Virginia SIP because The Anti-Degradation policy was never utilized to enforce West Virginia's PSD permitting program or West Virginia's minor source permitting program; these programs, which are included in the West Virginia State Implementation Plan (SIP), are found respectively at 45 CSR 14 and 45 CSR 13.  As previously stated, The Anti-Degradation policy was not utilized by West Virginia for the PSD or minor source permitting programs and was not used to impose emission limits on sources in West Virginia; this fact was confirmed by the West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) upon inquiry by EPA.  In addition, WVDEP also confirmed that this SIP revision contains measures to prevent significant deterioration of existing air quality, which are found in 40 CFR 50.2 , which has been incorporated by reference by 45 CSR 8.  Therefore, the removal of The Anti-Degradation Policy is nothing more than an administrative revision.


[Federal Register: September 19, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 181)]
[Notices]
[Page 53606-53607]
[DOCID:fr19se07-121]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2007-0064]

Federal Advisory Council on Occupational Safety and Health
(FACOSH): Announcement of Meeting

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

ACTION: Announcement of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Advisory Council on Occupational Safety and Health
(FACOSH) will meet October 11, 2007, in Washington, DC.

DATES: FACOSH meeting: FACOSH will meet from 1 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Thursday, October 11, 2007.
    Submission of comments and requests to speak: Comments and requests
to speak at the FACOSH meeting must be received by October 4, 2007.

ADDRESSES: FACOSH meeting: FACOSH will meet in Room C-5521, Conference
Room 4, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20210.
    Submission of comments and requests to speak: Comments and requests
to speak at the FACOSH meeting, identified by OSHA Docket No. 2007-
0064, may be submitted by any of the following methods:
    Electronically: You may submit materials, including attachments,
electronically at: http://www.regulations.gov, the Federal eRulemaking

Portal. Follow the online instructions for making submissions.
    Facsimile: If your submission, including attachments, is not longer
than 10 pages, you may fax it to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-
1648.
    Mail, express delivery, hand delivery, messenger or courier
service: Submit three copies of your submissions to the OSHA Docket
Office, Room N-2625, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue,
NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> (OSHA's TTY number
is<PHONE_NUMBER>). Deliveries (hand, express mail, messenger and
courier service) are accepted during the Department of Labor's and OSHA
Docket Office's normal business hours, 8:15 a.m.-4:45 p.m., e.t.
    Instructions: All submissions must include the Agency name and
docket number for this Federal Register notice (Docket No. OSHA-2007-
0064). Submissions in response to this Federal Register notice,
including personal information provided, will be posted without change
at: http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions interested

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

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

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

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information: Diane
Brayden,

Director, OSHA, Office of Federal Agency Programs, U.S. Department of
Labor, Room N-3622, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For
special accommodations for the FACOSH meeting: Veneta Chatmon, OSHA,
Office of Communications, Room N-3647, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-
1999.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FACOSH will meet Thursday, October 11, 2007,
in Washington, DC. All FACOSH meetings are open to the public.
    FACOSH is authorized by section 19 of the Occupational Safety and
Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 668), 5 U.S.C. 7902, and
Executive Order 12196 to advise the Secretary of Labor on all matters
relating to the occupational safety and health of Federal employees.
This includes providing advice on how to reduce and keep to a minimum
the number of injuries and illnesses in the Federal workforce and how
to encourage the establishment and maintenance of effective
occupational safety and health programs in each Federal Department and
Agency.
    The tentative agenda for the FACOSH meeting includes updates on
the:
     FY 2007 performance results of Federal Executive Branch
agencies in meeting the four goals of the Presidential Safety, Health,
and Return-to-Employment (SHARE) Initiative;
     FY 2006 Secretary of Labor's Report to the President on
the overall status of occupational safety and health in the Federal
Executive Branch;
     Federal Agency Recordkeeping Subcommittee;
     Federal agency training week being hosted by the OSHA
Training Institute on November 6-8, 2007 and results of OSHA's survey
of Federal agencies' training resources; and
     Field Federal Safety and Health Councils.
    FACOSH meetings are transcribed and detailed minutes of the
meetings are prepared. Meeting transcripts and minutes are included in
the official record of FACOSH meetings.
    Interested parties may submit a request to make an oral
presentation to FACOSH by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES
section above. The request must state the amount of time requested to
speak, the interest represented (e.g., business or organization name),
if any, and a brief outline of the presentation. Requests to address
FACOSH may be granted as time permits and at the discretion of the
FACOSH chair.
    Interested parties also may submit comments, including data and
other information, using any of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES
section above. OSHA will provide all submissions to FACOSH members.
    Individuals who need special accommodations and wish to attend the
FACOSH meeting should contact Veneta Chatmon, at the address above, at
least seven days before the meeting.

Public Participation--Submissions and Access to Official Meeting Record

    You may submit comments and requests to speak (1) electronically,
(2) by facsimile, or (3) by hard copy. All submissions, including
attachments and other materials, must identify the Agency name and the
OSHA docket number for this notice (Docket No. OSHA-2007-0064). You may
supplement electronic submissions by uploading documents
electronically. If, instead, you wish to submit hard copies of
supplementary documents, you must submit three copies to the OSHA
Docket Office using the instructions in the ADDRESSES section above.
The additional materials must clearly identify your electronic
submission by name, date and docket number.
    Because of security-related procedures, the use of regular mail may
cause a significant delay in the receipt of submissions. For
information about security procedures concerning the delivery of
submissions by hand, express delivery, messenger or courier service,
please contact the OSHA Docket Office at<PHONE_NUMBER> (TTY (877) 889-
5627).
    Meeting transcripts and minutes as well as submissions in response
to this Federal Register notice are included in the official record of
the FACOSH meeting (Docket No. OSHA-2007-0064). Submissions are posted
without change at: http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions

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

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

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

make submissions and to access the docket and exhibits is available at
the Web site's User Tips link. Contact the OSHA Docket Office for
information about materials not available through the Web site and for
assistance in using the Internet to locate submissions and other
documents in the docket. Electronic copies of this Federal Register
notice are available at: http://www.regulations.gov. This notice, as

well as news releases and other relevant information, is also available
at OSHA's Web page at: http://www.osha.gov.

Authority and Signature

    Edwin G. Foulke, Jr., Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational
Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice under the
authority granted by section 19 of the Occupational Safety and Health
Act of 1970 (OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 668), 5 U.S.C. 7902, section 1-5 of
Executive Order 12196, the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C.
App.2) and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 5-2007 (72 FR 31160).

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 14th day of September, 2007.
Edwin G. Foulke, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
 [FR Doc. E7-18406 Filed 9-18-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-26-P