     1    2 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDES AND TOXIC SUBSTANCES Chemical: MCPB, MCPB Sodium PC Code: 019202, 019201 DP Barcodes: 319759 MEMORANDUM DATE: 07 March 2006 SUBJECT: Comment Phase III for Reregistration of MCPB and MCPB Sodium FROM: Marie Janson, Environmental Scientist Ed Odenkirken, Senior Scientist Amer Al Mudallal, Chemist Nadar Elkassabany, Acting Branch Chief Environmental Risk Branch 1 Environmental Fate and Effects Division ( 7507C)

TO: Susan Lewis, Branch Chief Demson Fuller, CRM James Parker, CRM Registration Branch 1 SRRD Division ( 7505C)

Attached please find the Environmental Fate and Effects Division's ( EFED) revised comments environmental risk assessment for the proposed registration of MCPB as an herbicide on peas. Supported formulations of MCPB are Thistrol ® Herbicide ( 71368 5) and Sodium MCPB Solution ( 71368 7).

The additional comments from EFED on the draft risk assessment on science or interpretation are addressed in this Phase III, additional comments from EFED 3/ 07/ 06.      2    2 Environmental Fate and Ecological risk assessment Potential risks to non target organisms Page 2 paragraph 3 EFED made changes to Potential chronic risks to birds and aquatic organisms to Potential chronic risks to aquatic organisms.

1. Non Target Risks to animals and Plants Page 40 paragraph 1 The sentence chronic risk to freshwater fish and invertebrates can not be assessed because chronic toxicity data have not been submitted. EFED made changes to the above sentence that added estuarine marine fish and invertebrates data also was not submitted.

Page 40 paragraph 12 EFED deleted the following sentence: However, the LOCs for endangered freshwater vascular plants were exceeded for the ground and aerial spray application scenarios. This sentence was replaced with Endangered freshwater vascular plants can not be assessed due to a non discreet NOEC value.

Appendix F Data Requirements Page108 Table of Ecological Toxicity Data Requirements for 72 4b Freshwater invertebrate life cycle daphnia EFED changed from reserved to Yes need more data. EFED added 72 4b Estuarine marine invertebrate life cycle daphnia in reserve. The above changes were also made on data requirement table pages 8 9.


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 140 (Friday, July 20, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42796-42797]
[FR Doc No: 2012-17697]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

[DOT-OST-2012-0101]

Privacy Act of 1974; System of Records; Statement of General
Routine Uses; Notice of Establishment of Three New General Routine Uses

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary of Transportation, Department of
Transportation.

ACTION: Notice to establish three new Privacy Act general routine uses.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the requirements of the Privacy Act of
1974, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 552a, the Department of Transportation's
Office of the Secretary of Transportation (DOT/OST) is publishing three
new general routine uses for all DOT systems of records. Comment is
invited on the three new routine uses. The three new routine uses are
needed to clarify: The Department's authority to make disclosures to
any person or entity acting on behalf of DOT when the disclosure is
necessary to accomplish a DOT function; that the Department may make
disclosures to audit or oversight organizations when necessary and
relevant to a particular audit or oversight investigation of DOT
programs or activities; and that the Department may make disclosures to
other governmental entities when necessary for the detection,
prevention, disruption, preemption, or mitigation of terrorist
activities against the United States, as contemplated by the
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (Pub. L. 108-
458) and Executive Order 13388 (October 25, 2005).

DATES: Effective August 14, 2012. Written comments should be submitted
on or before the effective date. If no comments are received, the
proposal will become effective on the above date. If comments are
received, the comments will be considered and, where adopted, the
documents will be republished with changes.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket Number DOT-
OST-2012-0101, by one of the following methods:
     Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>
     Mail: Claire W. Barrett, Departmental Chief Privacy
Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name
and docket number for this notice. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal
information provided.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Claire W. Barrett, Departmental Chief
Privacy Officer, Office of the Chief Information Officer, U.S.
Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC
20590 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, 5
U.S.C. 552a, governs the means by which the United States Government
collects, maintains, and uses personally identifiable information (PII)
in a system of records. A ``system of records'' is a group of any
records under the control of a Federal agency from which information
about individuals is retrieved by name or other personal identifier.
The Privacy Act requires each agency to publish in the Federal
Register, for public notice and comment, a system of records notice
(SORN) identifying and describing each system of records the agency
maintains, including the purposes for which the agency uses PII in the
system and the routine uses for which the agency discloses such
information outside the agency. As provided in ``Privacy Act
Guidelines'' issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on
July 1, 1975 (see 40 FR 28966), once an agency has published a routine
use that will apply to all of its systems of records (i.e., a general
routine use) in the Federal Register for public notice and comment, the
agency may thereafter incorporate the publication by reference in each
system's SORN without inviting further public comment on that use. To
date, DOT has published 12 general routine uses (see 65 FR 19476,
published April 11, 2000; 68 FR 8647, published February 23, 2003; and
75 FR 82132, published December 29, 2010).
    The three new general routine uses are compatible with the purposes
for which the information to be disclosed under these general routine
uses was originally collected. With respect to the first new general
routine use, individuals whose PII is in DOT systems expect that DOT
may engage contractors, experts, consultants, and others to assist it
in performing the functions and activities that gave rise to the system
of records. This general use does not contemplate uses that are in
addition to those already identified in existing DOT SORNs, instead, it
clarifies that DOT may disclose information to its contractors,
consultants, experts and others when those individuals or organizations
are engaged in those uses already described in DOT SORNs on DOT's
behalf. With respect to the second new general routine use, individuals
whose PII is in DOT systems expect that their information may be
disclosed to audit or oversight agencies, like the National
Transportation Safety Board, when and only to the extent necessary and
relevant to the audit or oversight of DOT activities. Finally, with
respect to the third new general routine use, individuals whose
information is in DOT systems expect that certain information may be
released as is necessary and relevant to detect, prevent, disrupt, or
mitigate terrorist activities against the United States.
    For the reasons set forth above, the following three general
routine uses are established:
    13. DOT may disclose records from this system, as a routine use, to
contractors and their agents, experts, consultants, and others
performing or working on a contract, service, cooperative agreement, or
other assignment for DOT, when necessary to accomplish an agency
function related to this system of records.
    14. DOT may disclose records from this system, as a routine use, to
an agency, organization, or individual for the purpose of performing
audit or oversight operations related to this system of records, but
only such records as are necessary and relevant to the audit or
oversight activity. This routine use does not apply to intra-agency
sharing authorized under Section (b)(1) of the Privacy Act.
    15. DOT may disclose from this system, as a routine use, records
consisting of, or relating to, terrorism information (6 U.S.C.
485(a)(5)), homeland security information (6 U.S.C. 482(f)(1)), or Law
enforcement information (Guideline 2 Report attached to White House
Memorandum, ``Information Sharing Environment, November 22, 2006) to a
Federal, State, local, tribal, territorial, foreign government and/or
multinational

agency, either in response to its request or upon the initiative of the
Component, for purposes of sharing such information as is necessary and
relevant for the agencies to detect, prevent, disrupt, preempt, and
mitigate the effects of terrorist activities against the territory,
people, and interests of the United States of America, as contemplated
by the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (Pub.
L. 108-458) and Executive Order 13388 (October 25, 2005).

    Dated: July 16, 2012.
Claire W. Barrett,
DOT Chief Privacy Officer.
[FR Doc. 2012-17697 Filed 7-19-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 223 (Monday, November 19, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58319-58320]
[FR Doc No: 2018-25112]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket No. PHMSA-2018-0100; Notice No. 2018-21]

Hazardous Materials: Emergency Waiver No. 10

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.

ACTION: Notice of emergency waiver order.

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

SUMMARY: PHMSA is issuing an emergency waiver order to persons
conducting operations under the direction of Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) Region 9 or United States Coast Guard (USCG) Eleventh
District within the California Wildfire emergency area. The Waiver is
granted to support the EPA and USCG in taking appropriate actions to
prepare for, respond to, and recover from a threat to public health,
welfare, or the environment caused by actual or potential oil and
hazardous materials incidents resulting from the California Wildfires.
This Waiver Order is effective immediately and shall remain in effect
for 30 days from the date of issuance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Adam Horsley, Deputy Assistant Chief
Counsel for Hazardous Materials Safety, Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration, telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with the provisions of 49
U.S.C. 5103(c), the Administrator for the Pipeline and Hazardous
Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), hereby declares that an
emergency exists that warrants issuance of a Waiver of the Hazardous
Materials Regulations (HMR, 49 CFR parts 171-180) to persons conducting
operations under the direction of EPA Region 9 or USCG Eleventh
District within the California Wildfire emergency area. The Waiver is
granted to support the EPA and USCG in taking appropriate actions to
prepare for, respond to, and recover from a threat to public health,
welfare, or the environment caused by actual or potential oil and
hazardous materials incidents resulting from the California Wildfires.
    On November 9, 2018, the President issued an Emergency Declaration
for the California Wildfires for the counties of Butte, Los Angeles,
and Ventura (EM-3409). The President declared a major disaster in
California on November 12, 2018 (DR-4407).
    This Waiver Order covers all areas identified in the declarations,
as amended. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5103(c), PHMSA has authority
delegated by the Secretary (49 CFR 1.97(b)(3)) to waive compliance with
any part of the HMR provided that the grant of the waiver is: (1) In
the public interest; (2) not inconsistent with the safety of
transporting hazardous materials; and (3) necessary to facilitate the
safe movement of hazardous materials into, from, and within an area of
a major disaster or emergency that has been declared under the Robert
T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C.
5121 et seq.).
    Given the continuing impacts caused by the California Wildfires,
PHMSA's Administrator has determined that regulatory relief is in the
public interest and necessary to ensure the safe transportation in
commerce of hazardous materials while the EPA and USCG execute their
recovery and cleanup efforts in California. Specifically, PHMSA's
Administrator finds that issuing this Waiver Order will allow the EPA
and USCG to conduct their Emergency Support Function #10 response
activities under the National Response Framework to safely remove,
transport, and dispose of hazardous materials. By execution of this
Waiver Order, persons conducting operations under the direction of EPA
Region 9 or USCG Eleventh District within the California Wildfire
emergency area are authorized to offer and transport non-radioactive
hazardous materials under alternative safety requirements imposed by
EPA Region 9 or USCG Eleventh District when compliance with the HMR is
not practicable. Under this Waiver Order, non-radioactive hazardous
materials may be transported to staging areas within 50 miles of the
point of origin. Further transportation of the hazardous materials from
staging areas must be in full compliance with the HMR.
    This Waiver Order is effective immediately and shall remain in
effect for 30 days from the date of issuance.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on November 13, 2018.
Howard R. Elliott,
Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
[FR Doc. 2018-25112 Filed 11-16-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 229 (Tuesday, November 29, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 73503-73504]
[FR Doc No: 2011-30533]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0608; Airspace Docket No. 11-ASW-7]

Amendment of Class E Airspace; Winters, TX

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends Class E airspace for Winters, TX.
Decommissioning of the Winters non-directional beacon (NDB) and
cancellation of the NDB Standard Instrument Approach Procedure (SIAP)
at Winters Municipal Airport, Winters, TX, as well as the addition of
new area navigation (RNAV) SIAPs, has made this action necessary to
enhance the safety and management of Instrument Flight Rule (IFR)
operations at the airport.

DATES: Effective date: 0901 UTC, February 9, 2012. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Enander, Central Service Center,
Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76137; telephone (817) 321-
7716.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On August 26, 2011, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking to amend Class E airspace for Winters,
TX, reconfiguring controlled airspace at Winters Municipal Airport (76
FR 53354) Docket No. FAA-2011-0608. Interested parties were invited to
participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on
the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received. Class E airspace
designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9V dated
August 9, 2011, and effective September 15, 2011, which is incorporated
by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed
in this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 by amending Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface for the Winters, TX area. Decommissioning of the
Winters NDB and cancellation of the NDB approach at Winters Municipal
Airport, as well as the creation of new RNAV standard instrument
approach procedures, has made reconfiguration of the airspace necessary
for the safety and management of IFR operations at the airport.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule''
under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, section 106, describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
subtitle VII, part A, subpart I, section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it amends controlled airspace at Winters Municipal Airport, Winters,
TX.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9V, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 9, 2011, and effective September 15,
2011 is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface.

* * * * *

ASW TX E5 Winters, TX [Amended]

Winters Municipal Airport, TX
    (Lat. 31[deg]56'50'' N., long. 99[deg]59'09'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.3-mile radius of Winters Municipal Airport, and

within 2 miles each side of the 000[deg] bearing from the airport
extending from the 6.3-mile radius to 9.2 miles north of the
airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on November 9, 2011.
Gail L. Kasson,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2011-30533 Filed 11-28-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 10, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15434-15435]
[FR Doc No: 2018-07241]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-82990; File No. SR-MRX-2018-10]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq MRX, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Chapter IV
of the Exchange's Schedule of Fees

April 4, 2018.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on March 22, 2018, Nasdaq MRX, LLC (``MRX'' or ``Exchange'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed
rule change as described in Items I and II, below, which Items have
been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice
to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Chapter IV of its Schedule of Fees,
as described below.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://nasdaqmrx.cchwallstreet.com/, at the principal office
of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend Chapter IV of its Schedule of Fees
to harmonize it with the rules of Nasdaq BX, Inc. (``BX'').
    The amendments eliminate or replace certain obsolete language in
the Schedule of Fees. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend
Chapter IV.A.2, under the heading ``Market Data Connectivity,'' to re-
categorize and to update references to the CBOE/Bats/Direct Edge data
feeds to reflect their current names. Similarly, the Exchange proposes
to delete a $1,000 installation fee that presently applies to the
Direct Edge feeds because the Direct Edge feeds are now offerings of
CBOE, along with the BZX and BYX feeds. Going forward, a single, one-
time $1,000 installation fee will apply to subscribers to any or all of
the CBOE data feeds. The Exchange also proposes to correct a
typographical error in the name of the TSXV Level 2 Feed. The Exchange
notes that this proposal will render this paragraph of Chapter IV.A.2
consistent with BX Rule 7034.
    The proposal adds a footnote to the first line of Chapter IV.A,
which was mistakenly omitted from the Schedule of Fees, which states
that the co-location services described therein are provided by Nasdaq
Technology Services LLC.
    The Exchange also proposes to correct a typographical error in the
numbering of the subsection of Chapter IV entitled ``Exchange Testing
Facilities.'' The proposal changes the lettering of this subsection
from ``I.'' to ``E.'' It furthermore corrects a typographical error in
the asterisked footnote under the ``Market Data Connectivity Heading''
wherein the existing text erroneously states that ``[m]arket data fees
are charged independently by Nasdaq ISE and other exchanges'' rather
than by ``Nasdaq MRX and other exchanges.''
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\3\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\4\ in particular, in that it is designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general to protect investors and the public interest.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to update Chapter IV.A.2 will
serve the interests of the public and investors by ensuring that the
Exchange's Rules are accurate and current with respect to the names of
the third party data feeds to which it offers connectivity.
Furthermore, the Exchange believes that it is in the public interest to
correct typographical errors that could otherwise lead to confusion.
These proposals will not impact competition or limit access to or
availability of the Exchange or its systems. The Exchange notes the
proposal is noncontroversial because BX has made the same changes to
its rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange's proposal to eliminate the $1,000 installation fee
that presently applies to the Direct Edge feeds is consistent with
Section 6(b) of the Act,\5\ in general, and furthers the objectives of
Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\6\ in particular, in that it
provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and
other charges among members and issuers and other persons using any
facility, and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between
customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers. The proposal is reasonable
because the Direct Edge feeds are now offerings of CBOE, along with the
BZX and BYX feeds. The Exchange believes it is equitable, going
forward, to charge a single, one-time $1,000 installation fee to
subscribers to any or all of the CBOE data feeds, including the BZX
Depth, BYX Depth, EDGA Depth, and EDGX Depth feeds. This proposal is
not unfairly discriminatory because it will apply to all similarly
situated customers of the CBOE data feeds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
    In this instance, the proposed changes merely replace obsolete
text, update references to data feeds, add inadvertently omitted text,
and correct typographical errors. The Exchange does not intend for or
expect that such changes will have any impact on competition.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on

which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may
designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of
the Act \7\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \9\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \10\ permits the
Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange
has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay so
that the proposed rule change may become operative upon filing. Waiver
of the operative delay would allow the Exchange to update its rules
without delay to reflect current and accurate information with respect
to the third party data feeds to which it offers connectivity and to
correct typographical errors. The Commission also notes that BX
recently made similar changes to its rules.\11\ Therefore, the
Commission believes that waiver of the 30-day operative delay is
consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest.
Accordingly, the Commission hereby waives the operative delay and
designates the proposed rule change operative upon filing.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 82628 (February 5,
2018), 83 FR 5818 (February 9, 2018) (SR-BX-2018-006).
    \12\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission also has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-MRX-2018-10 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-MRX-2018-10. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-MRX-2018-10, and should be submitted on
or before May 1, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-07241 Filed 4-9-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 19 (Monday, January 29, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 4015-4022]
[FR Doc No: 2018-01493]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2017-0656; FRL-9972-67-Region 8]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
State of Wyoming; Sheridan PM10 Nonattainment Area Limited Maintenance
Plan and Redesignation Request

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
fully approve the Limited Maintenance Plan (LMP), submitted by the
State of Wyoming to the EPA on June 2, 2017, for the Sheridan moderate
PM10 nonattainment area (Sheridan NAA) and concurrently
redesignate the Sheridan NAA to attainment of the National Ambient Air
Quality Standard (NAAQS) for particulate matter with an aerodynamic
diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers
(PM10). In order to approve the LMP and redesignation, the
EPA is proposing to determine that the Sheridan NAA has attained the
1987 24-hour PM10 NAAQS of 150 [micro]g/m\3\. This
determination is based upon monitored air quality data for the
PM10 NAAQS during the years 2014-2016. Additionally, the EPA
is proposing to approve the Sheridan LMP as meeting the appropriate
transportation conformity requirements found in 40 CFR 93, subpart A.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before February 28,
2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2017-0656 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from www.regulations.gov. The 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. The 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 the
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Hou, Air Program, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting Confidential Business Information (CBI). Do not
submit CBI to the EPA through http://www.regulations.gov or email.
Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be
CBI. For CBI information on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to the EPA,
mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify
electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that
is

claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that
includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does
not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for
inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be
disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part
2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register volume,
date, and page number);
     Follow directions and organize your comments;
     Explain why you agree or disagree;
     Suggest alternatives and substitute language for your
requested changes;
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used;
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced;
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives;
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats; and,
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. Background of the Sheridan PM10 Nonattainment Area
(Sheridan NAA)

A. Description of the Sheridan Nonattainment Area

    The Sheridan NAA encompasses the City of Sheridan, Wyoming, and was
designated nonattainment for the 1987 24-hour PM10 NAAQS and
classified as moderate under sections 107(d)(4)(B), following enactment
of the Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments of 1990. See 56 FR 56694
(November 6, 1991). States containing initial moderate PM10
nonattainment areas were required to submit, by November 15, 1991, a
moderate nonattainment area State Implementation Plan (SIP) that, among
other requirements, implemented Reasonably Available Control Measures
(RACM) by December 10, 1993, and demonstrated whether it was
practicable to attain the PM10 NAAQS by December 31, 1994.
See generally 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); see also 57 FR 18070 (April
28, 1992).
    The State of Wyoming submitted an initial PM10 SIP to
the EPA on August 28, 1989, and subsequently submitted eight additional
submittals between 1989 and 1991. The State of Wyoming's SIP for the
Sheridan moderate nonattainment area included, among other things: A
comprehensive emissions inventory; RACM; a demonstration that
attainment of the PM10 NAAQS would be achieved in Sheridan
by December 31, 1994; Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) requirements;
and control measures that satisfy the contingency measures requirement
of section 172(c)(9) of the CAA.

III. Requirements for Redesignation

A. CAA Requirements for Redesignation of Nonattainment Areas

    Nonattainment areas can be redesignated to attainment after the
area has measured air quality data showing it has attained the NAAQS
and when certain planning requirements are met. Section 107(d)(3)(E) of
the CAA, and the General Preamble to Title I provide the criteria for
redesignation. See 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992). These criteria are
further clarified in a policy and guidance memorandum from John
Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management Division, EPA Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards dated September 4, 1992, ``Procedures
for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment.'' \1\ The
criteria for redesignation are:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate
Areas to Attainment'' (Calcagni memo) outlines the criteria for
redesignation. The Calcagni memo can be found at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/calcagni_memo_-_procedures_for_processing_requests_to_redesignate_areas_to_attainment_090492.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (1) The Administrator has determined that the area has attained the
applicable NAAQS;
    (2) The Administrator has fully approved the applicable SIP for the
area under section 110(k) of the CAA;
    (3) The state containing the area has met all requirements
applicable to the area under section 110 and part D of the CAA;
    (4) The Administrator has determined that the improvement in air
quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions;
and
    (5) The Administrator has fully approved a maintenance plan for the
area as meeting the requirements of section 175A of the CAA.

B. The LMP Option for PM10 Nonattainment Areas

    On August 9, 2001, the EPA issued guidance on streamlined
maintenance plan provisions for certain moderate PM10
nonattainment areas seeking redesignation to attainment (Memo from
Lydia Wegman, Director, Air Quality Standards and Strategies Division,
entitled ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for Moderate PM10
Nonattainment Areas,'' (hereafter the LMP Option memo)).\2\ The LMP
Option memo contains a statistical demonstration that areas meeting
certain air quality criteria will, with a high degree of probability,
maintain the standard 10 years into the future. Thus, the EPA has
already provided the maintenance demonstration for areas meeting the
criteria outlined in the LMP Option memo. It follows that future year
emission inventories for these areas, and some of the standard analyses
to determine transportation conformity with the SIP are no longer
necessary.
    To qualify for the LMP Option, the area should have attained the
1987 24-hour PM10 NAAQS, the average annual PM10
design value for the area, based upon the most recent five years of air
quality data at all monitors in the area, should be at or below 40
[micro]g/m\3\, and the 24-hour design value should be at or below 98
[micro]g/m\3\. The annual PM10 standard was effectively
revoked on December 18, 2006 (71 FR 61143), and as such will not be
discussed as a requirement for qualifying for the LMP option. In
addition, the area should expect only limited growth in on-road motor
vehicle PM10 emissions (including fugitive dust) and should
have passed a motor vehicle regional emissions analysis test. The LMP
Option memo also identifies core provisions that must be included in
the LMP. These provisions include an attainment year emissions
inventory, assurance of continued operation of an EPA-approved air
quality monitoring network, and contingency provisions.

C. Conformity Under the LMP Option

    The transportation conformity rule (40 CFR parts 51 and 93) and the
general conformity rule (40 CFR parts 51 and 93) apply to nonattainment
areas and maintenance areas covered by an approved maintenance plan.
Under either conformity rule, an acceptable method of demonstrating
that a federal action conforms to the applicable SIP is to demonstrate
that expected emissions from the planned action are consistent with the
emissions budget for the area.
    While the EPA's LMP Option does not exempt an area from the need to
affirm conformity, it explains that the area may demonstrate conformity
without submitting an emissions budget. Under the LMP Option, emissions
budgets are treated as essentially not constraining for the length of
the maintenance period because it is unreasonable to expect that the
qualifying areas would experience

so much growth in that period that a violation of the PM10
NAAQS would result. For transportation conformity purposes, the EPA
would conclude that emissions in these areas need not be capped for the
maintenance period; and therefore, a regional emissions analysis would
not be required. Similarly, federal actions subject to the general
conformity rule could be considered to satisfy the ``budget test''
specified in 40 CFR 93.158(a)(5)(i)(A) for the same reasons that the
budgets are essentially considered not limited.

IV. Review of the Wyoming State Submittal Addressing the Requirements
for Redesignation and Limited Maintenance Plans

A. Has the Sheridan NAA attained the applicable NAAQS?

    States must demonstrate that an area has attained the 24-hour
PM10 NAAQS through analysis of ambient air quality data from
an ambient air monitoring network representing peak PM10
concentrations. The data should be stored in the EPA Air Quality System
(AQS) database. The EPA is proposing to determine that the Sheridan NAA
has attained the PM10 NAAQS based on monitoring data from
calendar years 2014-2016. The 24-hour standard is attained when the
expected number of days with levels above 150 [micro]g/m\3\ (averaged
over a three-year period) is less than or equal to one. 40 CFR 50.6(a).
Three consecutive years of air quality data are generally necessary to
show attainment of the 24-hour and annual standards for
PM10. See 40 CFR part 50, appendix K. A complete year of air
quality data, as referred to in 40 CFR part 50, appendix K, is
comprised of all four calendar quarters with each quarter containing
data from at least 75 percent of the scheduled sampling days.
    The Sheridan NAA has two State and Local Air Monitoring Stations
(SLAMS) monitors operated by the Wyoming Department of Environmental
Quality (WDEQ). Table 1 summarizes the PM10 data collected
from 2012-2016. The EPA deems the data collected from these monitors
valid, and the data has been submitted by the WDEQ to be included in
AQS.

          Table 1--Summary of Maximum 24-Hour PM10 Concentrations [micro]g/m\3\ for Sheridan 2012-2016
               [Based on data from Sheridan Police Station, AQS Identification Number 56-033-0002]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Maximum       2nd Maximum
                                       concentration   concentration     Number of
                Year                    ([micro]g/      ([micro]g/      exceedances         Monitoring site
                                           m\3\)           m\3\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012................................              75              73               0  Police Station.
2013................................              57              52               0  Police Station.
2014................................              47              45               0  Police Station.
2015................................              73              73               0  Police Station.
2016................................              54              48               0  Police Station.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The PM10 concentrations reported at the Sheridan
monitoring sites showed no measured exceedances of the 24-hour
PM10 NAAQS, and as such, the EPA proposes to determine that
the Sheridan Moderate NAA has attained the standard for the 24-hour
PM10 NAAQS.

B. Does the Sheridan NAA have a fully approved SIP under CAA section
110(k)?

    In order to qualify for redesignation, the SIP for the area must be
fully approved under CAA section 110(k), and must satisfy all
requirements that apply to the area. Section 107(d)(4)(B) of the CAA
contains requirements and milestones for all initial moderate
nonattainment area SIPs including: (1) Provisions to assure that RACM
(including such reductions in emissions from existing sources in the
area as may be obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, of
Reasonably Available Control Technology--RACT) shall be implemented no
later than December 10, 1993; (2) A demonstration (including air
quality modeling) that the plan will provide for attainment as
expeditiously as practicable by no later than December 31, 1994, or,
where the state is seeking an extension of the attainment date under
section 188(e), a demonstration that attainment by December 31, 1994,
is impracticable and that the plan provides for attainment by the most
expeditious alternative date practicable (CAA sections 189(a)(1)(A));
(3) Quantitative milestones which are to be achieved every three years
and which demonstrate RFP toward attainment by December 31, 1994, (CAA
sections 172(c)(2) and 189(c)); and (4) Contingency measures to be
implemented if the area fails to make RFP or attain by its attainment
deadline. These contingency measures are to take effect without further
action by the State or the EPA. (CAA section 172(c)(9)).
    As stated above, on June 23, 1994, the EPA approved Sheridan's
moderate area plan including RACM, an attainment demonstration,
emissions inventory, quantitative milestones, and control and
contingency measure requirements. As such, the area has a fully
approved nonattainment area SIP under section 110(k) of the CAA.

C. Has the State met all applicable requirements under section 110 and
Part D of the CAA?

    Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA requires that a state containing a
nonattainment area must meet all applicable requirements under section
110 and Part D of the CAA for an area to be redesignated to attainment.
The EPA interprets this to mean that the state must meet all
requirements that applied to the area prior to, and at the time of, the
submission of a complete redesignation request. The following is a
summary of how Wyoming meets these requirements.
(1) CAA Section 110 Requirements
    Section 110(a)(2) of the CAA contains general requirements for
nonattainment plans. These requirements include, but are not limited
to, submittal of a SIP that has been adopted by the state after
reasonable notice and public hearing; provisions for establishment and
operation of appropriate apparatus, methods, systems and procedures
necessary to monitor ambient air quality; implementation of a permit
program; provisions for Part C--Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) and Part D--New Source Review (NSR) permit programs; criteria for
stationary source emission control measures, monitoring and reporting,
provisions for modeling; and provisions for public and local agency

participation. See the General Preamble for further explanation of
these requirements. 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992).
    For purposes of redesignation, the EPA's review of the Wyoming SIP
shows that the State has satisfied all requirements under section
110(a)(2) of the CAA. Further, in 40 CFR 52.2622, the EPA has approved
Wyoming's plan for the attainment and maintenance of the national
standards under section 110.
(2) Part D Requirements
    Part D contains general requirements applicable to all areas
designated nonattainment. The general requirements are followed by a
series of subparts specific to each pollutant. All PM10
nonattainment areas must meet the general provisions of Subpart 1 and
the specific PM10 provisions in Subpart 4, ``Additional
Provisions for Particulate Matter Nonattainment Areas.'' The following
paragraphs discuss these requirements as they apply to the Sheridan
NAA.
(3) Subpart 1, Section 172(c)
    Subpart 1, section 172(c) contains general requirements for
nonattainment area plans. A thorough discussion of these requirements
may be found in the General Preamble. See 57 FR 13538 (April 16, 1992).
CAA section 172(c)(2) requires nonattainment plans to provide for RFP.
Section 171(1) of the CAA defines RFP as ``such annual incremental
reductions in emissions of the relevant air pollutant as are required
by this part (part D of title I) or may reasonably be required by the
Administrator for the purpose of ensuring attainment of the applicable
national ambient air quality standard by the applicable date.'' Wyoming
submitted their first quantitative milestone report on March 29, 1995.
Since the EPA is proposing to determine that the Sheridan NAA is in
attainment of the PM10 NAAQS, we believe that no further
showing of RFP or quantitative milestones is necessary.
(4) Section 172(c)(3)--Emissions Inventory Section
    Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA requires a comprehensive, accurate,
current inventory of actual emissions from all sources in the Sheridan
PM10 nonattainment area. Wyoming included an emissions
inventory for the calendar year 2014 with its DATE? submittal of the
LMP for the Sheridan NAA. Based on the inventory preparation plan for
the PM10 2014 base year emissions inventory, which includes
windblown dust sources, the 2014 base year emissions inventory is
current, accurate and comprehensive; and therefore, meets the
requirements of Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA.
(5) Section 172(c)(5)--NSR
    The 1990 CAA Amendments contained revisions to the NSR program
requirements for the construction and operation of new and modified
major stationary sources located in nonattainment areas. The CAA
requires states to amend their SIPS to reflect these revisions, but
does not require submittal of this element along with the other SIP
elements. The CAA established June 30, 1992, as the submittal date for
the revised NSR programs (Section 189 of the CAA). In lieu of
instituting NSR regulations for construction in the Sheridan NAA, the
State of Wyoming chose to institute a construction ban on major sources
for the Sheridan NAA, which was deemed to have satisfied the NSR
requirements, and was approved into the Wyoming SIP on November 29,
1994 (59 FR 60931).
(6) Section 172(c)(7)--Compliance With CAA Section 110(a)(2): Air
Quality Monitoring Requirements
    Once an area is redesignated, the state must continue to operate an
appropriate air monitoring network in accord with 40 CFR part 58 to
verify attainment status of the area. The State of Wyoming and the City
of Sheridan operate two PM10 SLAMS in the Sheridan NAA. Both
monitoring sites meet EPA SLAMS network design and siting requirements
set forth at 40 CFR part 58, appendices D and E. The Police Station
monitor has been in continuous operation since 1985, while the second
monitoring station has been moved several times since 1998, but is
currently sited at the Meadowlark Elementary School. In Section 6.6 of
the LMP that we are proposing to approve, the State commits to
continued operation of the monitoring network.
(7) Section 172(c)(9)--Contingency Measures
    The CAA requires that contingency measures take effect if the area
fails to meet RFP requirements or fails to attain the NAAQS by the
applicable attainment date. Since the Sheridan NAA attained the 1987
24-hour PM10 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date of
December 31, 1994, contingency measures are no longer required under
Section 172(c)(9) of the CAA. However, contingency provisions are
required for maintenance plans under Section 175(a)(d). We describe the
contingency provisions Wyoming provided in the Sheridan LMP below.
(8) Part D Subpart 4
    Part D Subpart 4, Section 189(a), (c) and (e) requirements apply to
any moderate nonattainment area before the area can be redesignated to
attainment. The requirements which were applicable prior to the
submission of the request to redesignate the area must be fully
approved into the SIP before redesignating the area to attainment.
These requirements include: (a) Provisions to assure that RACM was
implemented by December 10, 1993; (b) Either a demonstration that the
plan provided for attainment as expeditiously as practicable but not
later than December 31, 1994, or a demonstration that attainment by
that date was impracticable; (c) Quantitative milestones which were
achieved every three years and which demonstrate RFP toward attainment
by December 31, 1994; and (d) Provisions to assure that the control
requirements applicable to major stationary sources of PM10
also apply to major stationary sources of PM10 precursors
except where the Administrator determined that such sources do not
contribute significantly to PM10 levels which exceed the
NAAQS in the area. These provisions were fully approved into the SIP
upon the EPA's approval of the PM10 moderate area plan for
the Sheridan NAA on June 23, 1994 (See 59 FR 32370), and the EPA is
proposing to approve the attainment demonstration, based on the
maintenance demonstration submitted with the LMP, in this action.

D. Has the state demonstrated that the air quality improvement is due
to permanent and enforceable reductions?

    The state must be able to reasonably attribute the improvement in
air quality to permanent and enforceable emission reductions. In making
this showing, the state must demonstrate that air quality improvements
are the result of actual enforceable emission reductions. This showing
should consider emission rates, production capacities, and other
related information. The analysis should assume that sources are
operating at permitted levels (or historic peak levels) unless evidence
is presented that such an assumption is unrealistic. Permanent and
enforceable control measures in the Sheridan NAA SIP include RACM.
Emission sources in the Sheridan NAA have been implementing RACM for at
least 10 years. In the EPA's approval of the Sheridan attainment plan
on June 23, 1994, the EPA acknowledged that the primary source category

contributing to the PM10 nonattainment problem in Sheridan
was fugitive road dust. The State demonstrated that, by applying the
control measure, the ''Sanding Winter Maintenance Plan'' (SWMP), to
designated streets during the Winter season, Sheridan would effectively
control fugitive road dust; and thus, be in attainment by December 31,
1994. The State has noted that there have been updates to the SWMP,
that are congruent with the original SWMP. However, in the intervening
years since the approval of the Sheridan NAA attainment plan, many of
the roads which were unpaved, have now been paved, allowing for plowing
of the roads as opposed to frequent sanding. In the instances where
sanding is still applied, it is applied consistent with the 1994 SWMP,
as noted in section 3.3 of the Sheridan LMP.
    Areas that qualify for the LMP will meet the NAAQS, even under
worst case meteorological conditions. Under the LMP option, the
maintenance demonstration is presumed to be satisfied if an area meets
the qualifying criteria. Thus, by qualifying for the LMP, Wyoming has
demonstrated that the air quality improvements in the Sheridan area are
the result of permanent emission reductions and not a result of either
economic trends or meteorology. A description of the LMP qualifying
criteria and how the Sheridan area meets these criteria is provided in
the following section.

E. Does the area have a fully approved maintenance plan pursuant to
Section 175A of the CAA?

    In this action, we are proposing to approve the Limited Maintenance
Plan in accordance with the principles outlined in the LMP Option.

F. Has the state demonstrated that the Sheridan NAA qualifies for the
LMP Option?

    The LMP Option memo outlines the requirements for an area to
qualify for the LMP Option. First, the area should be attaining the
NAAQS. As stated above in Section IV.A., the EPA has determined that
the Sheridan NAA is attaining the PM10 NAAQS, based upon
2014-2016 data, and has had no exceedances between the years 2008-2016.
    Second, the average design value (ADV) for the past five years of
monitoring data (2012-2016) must be at or below the critical design
value (CDV). The CDV is a margin of safety value and is the value at
which an area has been determined to have a 1 in 10 probability of
exceeding the NAAQS. The LMP Option memo provides two methods for
review of monitoring data for the purpose of qualifying for the LMP
option. The first method is a comparison of a site's ADV with the CDV
of 98 [micro]g/m\3\ for the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS. A second
method that applies to the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS is the
calculation of a site-specific CDV and a comparison of the site-
specific CDV with the ADV for the past five years of monitoring data.
Table 2 outlines the design values for the years 2012-2016, and
presents the ADV.

              Table 2--Summary of 24-Hour PM10 Design Values ([micro]g/m\3\) for Sheridan 2012-2016
[Based on data from Sheridan Police Station and Meadowlark Elementary, AQS Identification Number 56-033-0002 and
                                                  56-033-1003]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Design value
              Design value years                 ([micro]g/                     Monitoring site
                                                    m\3\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012-2014....................................              60  Police Station.
2013-2015....................................              57  Police Station.
2014-2016....................................              72  Police Station.
2012-2014....................................             (*)  Meadowlark Elementary.
2013-2015....................................              72  Meadowlark Elementary.
2014-2016....................................              72  Meadowlark Elementary.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average DV based on highest DVs..............................  68 [micro]g/m\3\.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The Meadowlark School monitor was installed on July 2012, and therefore missing the first two quarters in
  2012. The 2012-2014 DV from the Police Station monitor was used to calculate the ADV for the NAA.

    The ADV for the 24-hour PM10 NAAQS for Sheridan, based
on data from the collocated SLAMS monitors for the years 2012-2016, is
68 [micro]g/m\3\. This value falls below the presumptive 24-hour CDV of
98 [micro]g/m\3\. Therefore, Sheridan meets the design value criteria
outlined in the LMP Option memo. For the 2012-2016 ADV calculations for
PM10 in Sheridan, please see the supporting documents in the
docket.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See memo to file dated November 17, 2017 titled
``PM10 24-hour Design Concentration for Sheridan
Wyoming.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Third, the area must meet the motor vehicle regional emissions
analysis test in attachment B of the LMP Option memo. Using the
methodology outlined in the memo, based on monitoring data for the
period 2014-2016, the EPA has determined that the Sheridan NAA passes
the motor vehicle regional emissions analysis test. For the
calculations used to determine that Sheridan has passed the motor
vehicle regional analysis test, see the supporting documents in the
docket.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See memo to file dated December 4, 2017, title ``Sheridan
Motor Vehicle Regional Emissions Analysis.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The monitoring data for the period 2014-2016 shows that Sheridan
has attained the NAAQS for PM10, the 24-hour ADV for
Sheridan is less than the 24-hour PM10 CDV. Finally, the
area has met the regional vehicle emissions analysis test. Thus, the
Sheridan NAA qualifies for the LMP Option described in the LMP Option
memo. The LMP Option memo also indicates that once a state selects the
LMP Option and it is in effect, the state will be expected to
determine, on an annual basis, that the LMP criteria are still being
met. If the state determines that the LMP criteria are not being met,
it should take action to reduce PM10 concentrations enough
to requalify for the LMP. One possible approach the state could take is
to implement contingency measures. Please see Section 6.3. for a
description of contingency provisions submitted as part of the State's
submittal.

G. Does the state have an approved attainment emissions inventory which
can be used to demonstrate attainment of the NAAQS?

    The state's approved attainment plan should include an emissions
inventory (attainment inventory) which can be used to demonstrate
attainment of the NAAQS. The inventory should represent emissions
during the same five-year period associated with air quality data used
to determine whether the area meets the applicability

requirements of the LMP Option. The state should review its inventory
every three years to ensure emissions growth is incorporated in the
attainment inventory if necessary. In this instance, Wyoming completed
an attainment year inventory for the attainment year 2014. The EPA has
reviewed the 2014 emissions inventory and determined that it is
current, accurate and complete. The EPA has also reviewed monitoring
data for the years 2012-2016, and determined that the 2014 emissions
inventory is representative of the attainment year inventory since the
NAAQS was not violated during 2014. In addition, the emissions
inventory submitted with the LMP for the calendar year 2014 is
representative of the level of emissions during the time period used to
calculate the average design value since 2014 is included in the five-
year period used to calculate the design value (2012-2016). As stated
above in Section IV.C.4., the 2014 emissions inventory meets the
requirements of Section 172(c)(3) of the CAA, and the requirements for
emissions inventory in Table 3.1 of the EPA document entitled
PM10 Emission Inventory Requirements, Final Report.

H. Does the LMP include an assurance of continued operation of an
appropriate EPA-approved air quality monitoring network, in accordance
with 40 CFR Part 58?

    A PM10 monitoring network was established in the
Sheridan NAA in 1984. Since that time, the Police Station monitor has
been in continuous operation, while the neighborhood monitor has been
moved several times since 1998. The neighborhood monitor is currently
sited at the Meadowlark Elementary School. The monitoring network was
developed and has been maintained in accordance with federal siting and
design criteria in 40 CFR part 58, Appendices D and E and in
consultation with EPA Region 8. Currently, there are two
PM10/PM2.5 SLAMS/National Air Monitoring Stations
(NAMS) monitors in the Sheridan NAA. In Section 6.6 of the Sheridan
LMP, Wyoming states that it will continue to operate its monitoring
network to meet EPA requirements.

I. Does the plan meet the CAA requirements for contingency provisions
for maintenance plans?

    Section 175A of the CAA states that a maintenance plan must include
contingency provisions, as necessary, to promptly correct any violation
of the NAAQS which may occur after redesignation of the area to
attainment. As explained in the LMP Option memo, these contingency
measures do not have to be fully adopted at the time of redesignation.
As noted above, CAA section 175A requirements are distinct from CAA
section 172(c)(9) contingency measures. Section 6.3 of the Sheridan
Limited Maintenance Plan describes a process and timeline to identify
and evaluate appropriate contingency measures in the event of a quality
assured violation of the PM10 NAAQS. Upon notification of a
PM10 exceedance, the AQD and local government staff in the
Sheridan area will develop appropriate contingency measure(s) intended
to prevent or correct a violation of the PM10 standard.
Information about historical exceedances of the standard, the
meteorological conditions related to the recent exceedance(s), and the
most recent estimates of growth and emissions will be reviewed. The
possibility that an exceptional event occurred will also be evaluated.
The AQD will notify the EPA Region 8 within 45 days of any exceedance.
Usually, upon notification to the Region, the AQD will indicate whether
it believes that the event could be exceptional. If the event is
considered eligible for data exclusion by the AQD, the AQD then
provides official notification per the CFR (40 CFR 50.14) by flagging
the affected data and providing a description with the quarterly data
uploaded to AQS (90 days after the end of the quarter in which the
event took place). Additionally, under the 2016 revisions to the
Treatment of Data Influenced by Exceptional Events Rule (81 FR 68216),
the AQD would confer with EPA Region 8 regarding whether the flagged
event would meet the criteria of a regulatory decision, and if so, a
determination would be made on whether to move forward with producing a
demonstration. This process will be completed within six months of the
exceedance notification. If a violation of the PM10 NAAQS
has occurred, a public hearing process at the State and local level
will begin. Contingency measures will be adopted and fully implemented
within one year of a PM10 NAAQS violation. Any State-
enforceable measures will become part of the next revised maintenance
plan, submitted to the EPA for approval.
    Potential contingency provisions identified in the Sheridan LMP
include the following:
     Re-implementing the voluntary wood burning curtailment
program.
     Re-implementing the wood burning public information
campaign.
     Mandatory wood burning curtailment.
     Bans on all wood burning.
     Implementing nonattainment new source review regulations
for the City of Sheridan.
     Re-establishing the construction ban on major stationary
sources that had been removed from Wyoming's State Implementation Plan.
     Paving the remaining unpaved roads within the City of
Sheridan.
     Other restrictions/regulations/action plans involving
stationary sources based on the consideration of cost-effectiveness,
PM10 emission reduction potential, economic and social
considerations, or other factors that the State deems appropriate.
     Coordination with the Wyoming Department of
Transportation/local transit agency regarding roadwork and
transportation control measures.
    The current and proposed contingency provisions in Sheridan's LMP
meet the requirements for contingency provisions as outlined in the LMP
Option memo.

J. Has the state met transportation conformity requirements?

(1) Transportation Conformity
    Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the CAA.
Conformity to a SIP means that transportation activities will not
produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or
delay timely attainment of the NAAQS (CAA section 176(c)(1)(B)). The
EPA's conformity rule at 40 CFR part 93, subpart A requires that
transportation plans, programs and projects conform to SIPs and
establishes the criteria and procedures for determining whether or not
they conform. To effectuate its purpose, the conformity rule requires a
demonstration that emissions from the Regional Transportation Plan, if
applicable, and the Transportation Improvement Program are consistent
with the motor vehicle emission budget (MVEB) contained in the control
strategy SIP revision or maintenance plan (40 CFR 93.101, 93.118, and
93.124). The EPA notes that a MVEB is typically defined as the level of
mobile source emissions of a pollutant relied upon in the attainment or
maintenance demonstration to attain or maintain compliance with the
NAAQS in the nonattainment or maintenance area.\5\ MVEBs are, however,
treated differently with respect to LMP areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Further information concerning the EPA's interpretations
regarding MVEBs can be found in the preamble to the EPA's November
24, 1993, transportation conformity rule (see 58 FR 62193-62196).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We note that under our LMP Option memorandum, MVEBs are not
required

to be identified in the maintenance plan. While the EPA's LMP Option
memo does not exempt an area from the need to affirm conformity, it
explains that the area may demonstrate transportation conformity
without identifying and submitting a MVEB. The basis for this provision
in the LMP Option memorandum is that it is unreasonable to expect that
an LMP area will experience so much growth during the maintenance
period that a violation of the PM10 NAAQS would result.
Therefore, for transportation conformity purposes, the EPA has
concluded that mobile source emissions in LMP areas need not be capped,
with respect to a MVEB, for the maintenance period and a regional
emissions analysis (40 CFR 93.118), for transportation conformity
purposes, is also not required.
    However, since LMP areas are still maintenance areas, certain
aspects of the EPA's transportation conformity rule will continue to be
required for transportation projects located within the Sheridan
PM10 maintenance area. Specifically, for conformity
determinations, projects will have to demonstrate that they are
fiscally constrained (40 CFR 93.108) and meet the criteria for
consultation and timely implementation (as applicable) of
Transportation Control Measures (40 CFR 93.112 and 40 CFR 93.113,
respectively). In addition, projects located within the Sheridan
PM10 LMP area will be required to be evaluated for potential
PM10 hot-spot issues in order to satisfy the ``project
level'' conformity determination requirements. As appropriate, a
project may then need to address the applicable criteria for a
PM10 hot-spot analysis as provided in 40 CFR 93.116 and 40
CFR 93.123.
    Finally, our proposed approval of the Sheridan PM10 LMP
affects future PM10 project-level transportation conformity
determinations as prepared by the Wyoming Department of Transportation
in conjunction with the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal
Transit Administration. See 40 CFR 93.100. As such, the EPA is
proposing to approve the Sheridan LMP as meeting the appropriate
transportation conformity requirements found in 40 CFR 93, subpart A.
(2) General Conformity
    Federal actions, other than transportation conformity, that meet
specific criteria need to be evaluated with respect to the requirements
of Wyoming's general conformity rule.\6\ Wyoming's general conformity
rule requirements are designed to ensure that emissions from a federal
action will not cause or contribute to new violations of the NAAQS,
exacerbate current violations, or delay timely attainment. However, as
noted in our LMP Option memorandum, and similar to the above discussed
transportation conformity provisions, federal actions subject to
Wyoming's general conformity rule would be considered to satisfy the
``budget test,'' as specified in WAQSR Chapter 8, Section 3(c)(vii)(C)
of the rule. As discussed above, the basis for this provision in the
LMP Option memorandum is that it is unreasonable to expect that an LMP
area will experience so much growth during the maintenance period that
a violation of the PM10 NAAQS would result. Therefore, for
purposes of general conformity, a general conformity PM10
emissions budget does not need to be identified in the maintenance
plan, nor submitted, and the emissions from federal agency actions are
essentially considered to not be limited.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations (WAQSR),
Chapter 8, Section 3, General Conformity (as approved by the EPA; 78
FR 49685, August 15, 2013.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. The EPA's Proposed Action

    For the reasons explained in Section IV, we are proposing to
approve the LMP for the Sheridan NAA and the State's request to
redesignate the Sheridan NAA from nonattainment to attainment for the
1987 24-hour PM10 NAAQS. Additionally, the EPA is proposing
to determine that the Sheridan NAA has attained the NAAQS for
PM10. This determination is based upon monitored air quality
data for the PM10 NAAQS during the years 2014-2016. Lastly,
the EPA is proposing to approve the Sheridan LMP as meeting the
appropriate transportation conformity requirements found in 40 CFR 93,
subpart A.

VI. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

    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, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
proposed action merely approves state law as meeting federal
requirements; this proposed action 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, Oct. 4, 1993);
     Is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771 regulatory
action because this action is not significant 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 the 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 the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated
that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the
rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

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

    January 22, 2018.
Douglas H. Benevento,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2018-01493 Filed 1-26-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


ftR0?~ 26_ O& 39'

PFOS Presentation to CMA, June 19, 2000 Charles M. Aner, Director Chemical Control Division 2000 SEP 6 PH ( 2: 58 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency BACKGROUND PFOS ( perfluorooctane sulfonic acid) is a member of a large family ofsulfonated perfluorochemicals (~~ jannual production of the PFOS family is < 10 million ibs) which are used for a wide variety ofindustrial, commercial, and consumerapplications ( including use as a component of soil and stain resistant coatings for fabrics, leather, furniture, and carpets, In fire fighting foams, commercial and consumer floor polishes, cleaning products, and as a surfactant in other specialty applications). Pesticidal and indirect food use products are also made from this technology.

611 ofthese chemicals have the potential to degrade back to PFOS which does not appear to degrade further ( it is thus highly persistent). 3M Corporation is the sole US manufacturer ofthe PFOS family of chemicals.

PFOS has been found widely in human blood samples ( ppm levels in manufacturing workers, ppb levels in non exposed workers and in blood bank samples) based on 3M research. PFOS has also been found in wildlife species across the US ( especially in fish eating birds) and was detected in naive ( unexposed) laboratory rats ( the PFOS contamination was traced back to fish meal used in the rat chow).

PFOS caused postnatal deaths ( and other developmental effects) in offspiIng in a 2 generation reproductive effects rat study ( NOAEL of 0.1 mg/ kg/ day and LOAEL of 0.4 mg/ kg/ day). At higher doses in this study, progeny in the first generation died, while at the LOAEL reducedpup weight gain was observed.

PFOS accumulates to a high degree in humans and animals. It has an estimated half life of 4 years in humans. It thus appears to combine Persistence, Bioaccumulation, and Toxicity properties to a high degree.

3M had previously launched a major research effort on PFOS to characterize its environmental presence, environmental and human effects, and environmental fate. EPA continues to receive the results ofthis work and will make it available as it comes in.

EPA REVIEW Preliminary data indicated to EPA that PFOS is of significant concern on the basis ofevidence of widespreadhuman exposure and indications of toxicity in the 2 generation rat study. In addition, EPA's preliminary risk assessment indicated potentially unacceptable margins of exposure ( MOBs) for workers and possibly the general population.

I There are many assumptions and considerable uncertainty in these arguments and analyses. It is not possible at present to judge the adequacy or accuracy ofthe MOE analyses or whether the exposure levels used in the above estimations may be considered representative ofthe affected populations at large.

EPA has requested detailed information from 3M and a large body of information has been received but not fully reviewed. Review ofsubchronic studies provided by 3M on monkeys and rats also show deaths at doses similar to those reported in the 2 generation study.

3M has raised questions regarding the possible relevance to humans of a proposed mechanism ( effects on cholesterol biosynthesis) for PFOS's lethal effect in the 2 generation study. The proposed mechanism, the company argues, affects reproductive outcomes in litter bearing animals due to its inhibitory effect on a burst of cholesterol biosynthesis in the critical period just before birth.

The proposed mechanism would, if demonstrated, have broad implications for and present significant potential concerns for humans and environmental organisms. At this time it is not clear what is going on in PFOS toxicology   nonetheless, the persistent presence ofdeaths in multiple studies involving multiple species at roughly equivalent doses raises flags.

PHASE OUT DECISION BY3M Following a series ofdiscussions with EPA, and based on concerns about the widespread presence and longer term risks presented by PFOS, 3M announced that it would exit worldwide from this market by about the end ofthe year, although itmay need to extend the time period for some critical uses ( e. g., fire fighting foam).

EPA agrees that continued manufacture and use of PFOS represents an unacceptable technology that should be eliminated to protect human health and the environment from potentially severe long term consequences. The company has committed to continue its research effort despitethe commercial decision. 3M has expressed interest in collaborative efforts withEPA as they withdraw from the market and in the development of safer substitutes.

EPA is currently exwnining appropriate regulatory alternatives necessary to protect human health and environment in light of3M's phaseout decision on PFOS. More information will be made available as our strategy becomes clarified.

EPA strongly supports continued research on PFOS to improve our understanding ofit fate and effects to humans and the environment. A more complete understanding of the environmental fate ofPFOS derivatives, including polymers, is particularly important to allow an assessment of the longer term consequences of the PFOS which has been released into the environment.

EPA is prepared to workwith industry, both manufacturers and users, to assist in review of critical uses of PFOS to ensure that good decisions are made in those cases where risk/ risk 2 tradeoff issues are presented by the phaseout decision. These uses include fire fighting foam and acid mist suppression.

PFOS ALTERNATIVES AND RELATED SUBSTANCES Users ofPFOS based products are confrontingthe need to replace PFOS. Various materials have been identified as substitutes for these uses. EPA recommends that alternatives be carefUlly evaluated to identi~' possible hazard or risk issues. EPA is prepared to work with individual manufacturers ofalternatives which are available or under development as substitutes for PFOS to ensure that good decisions are made.

As the work on PFOS progresses, EPAplans to broaden its review to encompass other highly fluorinated acids, including PFOA and other materials, including the telomers.

PFOA PFOA ( perfluorooctanoic acid) is closely related structurally to PFOS and is used a's a solvent for certain polymerization reactions. EPA has requested information from producers and will be preparing an assessment. Based on preliminary information, PFOA presents a different hazard, exposure, and risk picture compared to PEOS. 3M has also committed to endingproduction of PFOA. There are other producers in the US and EPA is examining its options regarding action on PFOA. We are aware ofindustry concerns regarding the availability ofsubstitutes for PFOA in its fluoropolymer reaction solvent application.

TELOMERS AND OTHER PERFLUORO CHEMISTRIES EPA has not yet looked into the telomers and other perfluoro chemistries. The ITC will be requesting information on a broad array of fluorinated derivatives and we will be working with them aspart of our assessment effort. The telomers represent an interesting alternative to PFOS and we encourage industry efforts to inform EPA and others regarding the fate and effects of these materials. Ofparticular interest to EPA in this regard is to understand the environmental fate ofthese materials, including to what extent do the various derivatives degrade to PFOA and what are the rates and extent ofthis degradation under various environmental conditions.

3