[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 34 (Friday, February 20, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 9194-9202]
[FR Doc No: 2015-03180]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2014-0761; FRL 9922-94-Region 8]

Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Wyoming; Revisions to Wyoming Air Quality
Standards and Regulations; Nonattainment Permitting Requirements and
Chapter 3, General Emission Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to disapprove a portion of State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revisions submitted by the State of Wyoming on May 10, 2011. This
submittal revises the Wyoming Air Quality Standards and Regulations
(WAQSR) that pertain to the issuance of Wyoming air quality permits for
major sources in nonattainment areas. Also in this action, EPA is
approving SIP revisions submitted by the State of Wyoming on February
13, 2013, and on February 10, 2014. These submittals revise the WAQSR
with respect to sulfur dioxide (SO2) limits and dates of
incorporation by reference (IBR). This action is being taken under
section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: This final rule is effective March 23, 2015.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R08-OAR-2014-0761. All documents in the docket are listed in
the www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Program,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street,
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. EPA requests you contact the individual
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard
copy of the docket. You may view the hard copy of the docket Monday
through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin Leone, Air Program, Mailcode 8P-
AR, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street,
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. What are the changes that EPA is taking final action to approve?
III. What are the changes that EPA is taking final action to
disapprove?
IV. Response to Comments
V. What action is EPA taking today?
VI. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

Definitions

    For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain
words or initials as follows:
    (i) The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the Clean Air
Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.

    (ii) The initials BACT mean or refer to Best Available Control
Technology.
    (iii) The initials CFR mean or refer to Code of Federal
Regulations.
    (iv) The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United
States Environmental Protection Agency.
    (v) The initials FIP mean or refer to Federal Implementation Plan.
    (vi) The initials IBR mean or refer to incorporation by reference.
    (vii) The initials IAC mean or refer to the Iowa Administrative
Code.
    (viii) The initials LAER mean or refer to Lowest Achievable
Emissions Rate.
    (ix) The initials NAAQS mean or refer to National Ambient Air
Quality Standards.
    (x) The initials NOX mean or refer to nitrogen oxides.
    (xi) The initials NSR mean or refer to New Source Review.
    (xii) The initials PM10 mean or refer to particulate matter with an
aerodynamic diameter of less than or equal to 10 micrometers (coarse
particulate matter).
    (xiii) The initials PSD mean or refer to Prevention of Significant
Deterioration.
    (xiv) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.
    (xv) The initials SO2 mean or refer to sulfur dioxide.
    (xvi) The words State or Wyoming mean the State of Wyoming, unless
the context indicates otherwise.
    (xvii) The initials UGRB mean or refer to the Upper Green River
Basin.
    (xviii) The initials VOC mean or refer to volatile organic
compound.
    (xix) The initials WAQSR mean or refer to the Wyoming Air Quality
Standards and Regulations.
    (xx) The initials WDEQ mean or refer to the Wyoming Department of
Environmental Quality.

I. Background

    In this final rulemaking, we are taking final action to disapprove
the addition of Chapter 6, Section 13, Nonattainment permit
requirements, to the WAQSR submitted by the State of Wyoming on May 10,
2011. This new section incorporated by reference 40 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) section 51.165 in its entirety, with the exception of
paragraphs (a) and (a)(1), into Wyoming's Chapter 6 Permitting
Requirements.
    On March 27, 2008, EPA promulgated a revised National Ambient Air
Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone with an 8-hour concentration limit
of 0.075 parts per million (``8-Hour Ozone NAAQS''), and effective July
20, 2012, EPA designated the Upper Green River Basin area of Wyoming as
``nonattainment'' for the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS. For nonattainment areas,
states are required to submit SIP revisions, including a nonattainment
NSR permitting program for the construction and operation of new or
modified major stationary sources located in the nonattainment area. On
May 10, 2011, before the formal designation of the Green River Basin
Area as nonattainment for the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS, Wyoming submitted a
nonattainment new source review (NSR) permitting program SIP revision
to EPA.
    Our final disapproval will start a two-year clock under CAA section
110(c)(1) for our obligation to promulgate a federal implementation
plan (FIP) to correct the deficiency and the 18-month clock for
sanctions, as required by CAA section 179(a)(2). These deadlines will
be removed when Wyoming submits and we approve a SIP revision
addressing the deficiency.
    In this final rulemaking action, we are also taking final action to
approve revisions submitted by Wyoming on February 13, 2013, and on
February 10, 2014. These revisions to the WAQSR include portions of
rulemakings R-20 and R-22(b), respectively, as revisions to Wyoming's
SIP. Specifically, Wyoming revised Chapter 3, General Emissions
Standards, Section 4, Emission standards for sulfur oxides and Section
9, Incorporation by reference in rulemaking R-20; and then again
revised Section 9, Incorporation by reference in rulemaking R-22(b).

II. What are the changes that EPA is taking final action to approve?

    With respect to Wyoming's February 13, 2013, and February 10, 2014
submittals, EPA is taking final action to approve revisions to WASQR
Chapter 3, General Emissions Standards, Section 4, Emission standards
for sulfur oxides, and Section 9, Incorporation by reference. Section 4
covers only sulfur oxide emissions from specific sulfuric acid
production processes. These WAQSR changes and additions are consistent
with the CAA and EPA regulations.
    In our November 4, 2014 proposed action (79 FR 65362), we proposed
to approve the following revisions to the WASQR: Chapter 3, General
Emissions Standards, section 4, Emission standards for sulfur oxides
(in R-20); then subsequently amended (in R-22(b)), section 9,
Incorporation by reference.

III. What are the changes that EPA is taking final action to
disapprove?

    EPA is taking final action to disapprove the portion of Wyoming's
May 10, 2011 submittal that adds a new section to the permitting
requirements in WAQSR Chapter 6. The new Chapter 6 Section 13,
Nonattainment permit requirements, consists of one sentence: ``40 CFR
part 51.165 is herein incorporated by reference, in its entirety, with
the exception of paragraph (a) and paragraph (a)(1).''
    As explained in 79 FR 65362, these changes are not consistent with
CAA and EPA regulations. Specifically:

    1. CAA section 110(a)(2)(C), which requires each state plan to
include ``a program to provide for . . . the regulation of the
modification and construction of any stationary source within the
areas covered by the plan as necessary to assure that the [NAAQS]
are achieved, including a permit program as required in parts C and
D of this subchapter.''
    2. CAA section 172(c)(5), which provides that the plan ``shall
require permits for the construction and operation of new or
modified major stationary sources anywhere in the nonattainment
area, in accordance with section [173].''
    3. CAA section 173, which lays out the requirements for
obtaining a permit that must be included in the state's SIP-approved
permit program. Because language prefaced by phrases such as ``the
plan shall provide'' or ``the plan shall require'' does not itself
impose requirements on sources, the State's proposed plan revision
does not clearly satisfy the requirements of these statutory
provisions.
    4. CAA section 110(a)(2)(A), which requires that SIPs contain
enforceable emissions limitations and other control measures. Under
section CAA section 110(a)(2), the enforceability requirement in
section 110(a)(2)(A) applies to all plans submitted by a state.
    5. CAA section 110(i), which (with certain limited exceptions)
prohibits States from modifying SIP requirements for stationary
sources except through the SIP revision process.
    6. CAA section 172(c)(7), which requires that nonattainment
plans--including nonattainment NSR programs required by section
172(c)(5)--are required to meet the applicable provisions of section
110(a)(2), including the requirement in section 110(a)(2)(A) for
enforceable emission limitations and other control measures.
    7. CAA section 110(l), which provides that EPA cannot approve a
SIP revision that interferes with any applicable requirement of the
Act. As explained above, the addition of Chapter 6, Section 13 to
the Wyoming SIP would interfere with section 110(a)(2) and 110(i) of
the Act.
    8. Nor does the SIP revision comply with the requirements of 40
CFR 51.165 as the plan fails to impose the regulatory requirements
on individual sources, as required by the regulatory provisions.

    We provided a detailed explanation of the basis of approval and
disapproval in our proposed rulemaking (see 79 FR 65362). We invited
comment on all aspects of our proposal and provided a

30-day comment period. The comment period ended on December 4, 2014.

IV. Response to Comments

    We received two comment letters during the public comment period.
One comment letter was submitted by Bruce Pendery of the Wyoming
Outdoor Council and one was submitted by Todd Parfitt, Director of the
Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality.

Bruce Pendery of the Wyoming Outdoor Council

    Comment: The comment was in reference to WAQSR Chapter 6 Section
13, nonattainment NSR permits for major sources locating in
nonattainment areas. The comment stated that ``. . . the State's
proposed SIP revision is deficient because while it establishes
requirements for plans it does not establish unambiguous and
enforceable emission limits on sources that would be subject to the
regulation. These shortcomings fail to meet the regulatory requirement
to impose emission requirements for sources and also does not meet the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) of the Clean Air Act. In addition,
the State's submission does not specify the procedures it will use to
reduce emissions from major sources in nonattainment areas, bringing
into question the enforceability of offset requirements. This violates
section 110(i) of the Clean Air Act.''
    Response: For the reasons explained in 79 FR 65362, we agree with
the commenter that the addition of the sentence ``40 CFR part 51.165 is
herein incorporated by reference, in its entirety, with the exception
of paragraph (a) and paragraph (a)(1)'' in Chapter 6 Section 13,
Nonattainment permit requirements, does not meet the requirements of
CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) and CAA section 110(i).

Todd Parfitt, Director of the Wyoming Department of Environmental
Quality

    Comment: EPA's failure to timely approve Wyoming's plan effectively
transferred new source permitting authority in the Upper Green River
Basin (UGRB) nonattainment area from Wyoming to Region 8. In the
absence of EPA-approved provisions, the Wyoming Department of
Environmental Quality (WDEQ) has remained unable to permit new sources
in the UGRB area.
    Response: We disagree. First, Wyoming has a SIP-approved minor NSR
permit program and under that program can issue minor NSR permits
within the UGRB, so we presume that the comment is intended to refer
only to new major sources and major modifications locating in the UGRB.
Second, Wyoming has a SIP-approved Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) program and under that program can issue permits in
the UGRB ozone nonattainment area for new major sources of pollutants
other than nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile organic
compounds (VOCs), as ozone precursors, and modifications that are major
for pollutants other than NOX or VOCs, as ozone precursors,
so we also presume that the comment is intended to refer only to new
major sources of NOX and VOCs and modifications that are
major with respect to NOX and VOCs in the UGRB nonattainment
area.
    Given this, EPA Region 8 has not assumed authority to permit new
major sources of NOX and VOCs and modifications that are
major with respect to NOX and VOCs in the UGRB nonattainment
area. For EPA to have that authority, we would have had to issue a FIP
under section 110(c)(1) of the CAA, and we have not done so or even
proposed to do so; in fact, our proposal notice stated that the
disapproval would start the two-year clock for EPA's obligation to
promulgate a FIP.
    Under 40 CFR 52.21(k), it is expected that the State will issue
permits in accordance with Appendix S to 40 CFR part 51 until EPA has
approved a SIP submittal meeting the requirements of part D of title I
of the CAA (in particular, a SIP submittal meeting the plan
requirements that are set out in 40 CFR 51.165 as applicable to ozone
nonattainment areas). If WDEQ has not been granted sufficient authority
by the Wyoming legislature to issue permits under Appendix S prior to
approval of a SIP revision, this would be a serious concern that should
be addressed by the legislature, and this concern would exist in the
period after designation regardless of how long it would take EPA to
approve a nonattainment NSR program into the SIP. However, the comment
did not provide any information to cause us to think that WDEQ lacks
such authority. Even if it did, section 110(l) does not have an
exception that allows EPA to approve a SIP revision that interferes
with applicable requirements of the Act solely on the grounds that the
State has been granted insufficient authority by its legislature to act
in the interim prior to SIP approval.
    Finally, the comment did not identify any owners or operators that
have been unable to construct a new major source or major modification
in the UGRB nonattainment area due to WDEQ's alleged lack of authority
to issue permits. Nor did any owners or operators comment on our
proposed disapproval. We also note that in order to meet nonattainment
NSR requirements in the Sheridan coarse particulate matter
(PM10) nonattainment area, Wyoming has had a construction
ban in place and approved into the SIP for over twenty years (See
WAQSR, Chapter 6, Section 2(c)(ii)(B)). While the facts and
circumstances of the UGRB ozone nonattainment area may be different
than those of the Sheridan PM10 nonattainment area, the
comment does not explain why the State has a concern in the UGRB that
it does not in Sheridan.
    Comment: EPA's disapproval of Wyoming's plan is arbitrary and
capricious. It is arbitrary and capricious for an agency to respond to
the same situation in a different way without any rational explanation.
``Here, the Region 8 Administrator proposes to disapprove Wyoming's
plan for including language that was already approved, and has been
proposed to be approved, by the administrator of Regions 7 and 10.''
    The commenter references: Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; Idaho, 79 FR 11711 (March 3, 2014) (approving
portions of Idaho's plan that incorporated 40 CFR 51.165 by reference,
without excluding any of the language referring to ``the plan'');
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Iowa, 79 FR 27763
(May 15, 2014) (approving portions of Iowa's SIP revisions that
incorporate language from 40 CFR 51.165, including the phrase ``plan
shall provide'' three times and the phrase ``the plan shall require''
five times); Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Alaska
Nonattainment New Source Review, 79 FR 65366 (November 4, 2014)
(proposing to approve Alaska's SIP revisions that incorporate portions
of 40 CFR 51.165 by reference, including the phrase ``plan shall
provide that'' two times and the phrase ``all plans shall use'' one
time). The commenter states that the Region 7 Administrator approved
Iowa's plan as a direct final rule because ``the Agency views [it] as a
noncontroversial revision amendment.
    The commenter states EPA may not declare that its own regulations,
when incorporated by states in Region 7 and 10, are approvable for use
in a SIP, but, when incorporated by a state in Region 8, are ambiguous,
and therefore, do not contain enforceable emission limitations. The
commenter concludes that EPA should approve Wyoming's submittal in
accordance with these previous actions.
    Response: We disagree that Wyoming's submittal is approvable and
with the commenter's contention that

disapproval of Wyoming's submittal is inconsistent with EPA's approval
of other SIP submissions. With respect to approval of the submittal, we
noted in our proposal that, under section 110(l), EPA cannot approve
any SIP revision that would interfere with any applicable requirement
of the CAA. The comment does not dispute this basis for disapproval. We
also noted in our proposal that certain provisions incorporated by
Wyoming fail to specify procedures for determining the location of
offsets and therefore violate section 110(i) of the CAA, because the
provisions as incorporated would allow Wyoming to define and modify
those procedures without going through the SIP revision process. The
comment does not dispute this basis for disapproval, either.
Furthermore, we noted that the State's incorporation by reference of
language stating ``the plan may provide'' failed to create an
enforceable obligation and also created ambiguity as to whether the SIP
would actually include the provisions, thus violating the requirements
in 110(a)(2)(A) regarding enforceability and the requirement in
110(a)(2)(C) to have a nonattainment NSR permit program as specified in
part D of Title I, specifically sections 172(c)(5) and 173. The comment
does not dispute the ambiguity of the language stating ``the plan may
provide.'' Finally, we stated that the violation of sections 110(a)(2)
(specifically 110(a)(2)(A) and (C)) and 110(i)) would interfere with
applicable requirements of the Act and therefore we could not approve
the submittal. The comment does not dispute that 110(a)(2)(A),
110(a)(2)(C), and 110(i) are applicable requirements and that approval
of Wyoming's submittal would interfere with those requirements with
respect to the language regarding the permissible location of offsets
and the optional provisions prefaced by ``the plan may provide.''
Therefore, even if we agreed that our approval of other SIP submittals
was inconsistent with our disapproval of Wyoming's submittal--which we
do not--the deficiencies identified above would not allow us to approve
the Wyoming submittal.
    Second, EPA notes that we take numerous actions every year on SIP
submittals, each of which by itself can be voluminous and contain many
technical and legal issues. On occasion, it is possible that EPA may
have approved portions of SIP submittals that do not meet all the
requirements of the Act because EPA did not notice that a particular
issue was implicated by the SIP submittal.\1\ That this unfortunately
and occasionally happens does not require that EPA must subsequently
approve all SIP submittals that contain the same issue. To the
contrary, section 110(l) contains no exception that allows EPA to
approve a SIP revision that interferes with applicable requirements of
the CAA merely because in some other action EPA has failed to notice a
similar issue with a similar SIP revision. Thus, even if the comment
has characterized the other notices correctly--which EPA does not agree
it has--, EPA cannot approve Wyoming's SIP revision on the basis of
those actions. If Wyoming is concerned about EPA's approval of those
submittals, the State could have commented on those EPA actions or
petitioned EPA to address any alleged errors in EPA's approval.
However, it is not a remedy to the alleged inconsistencies to violate
110(l) and approve a SIP revision that interferes with applicable
requirements of the Act. In other words, the comment's request that we
approve the Wyoming submittal in fact requests that EPA take an action
that is arbitrary and capricious.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ With respect to the particular notices cited by the
commenter, none of them discuss the issues identified in our
proposal notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Generally speaking, EPA's requirements for SIPs with respect to
construction of new and modified sources, including the Part D
nonattainment NSR permit program, are contained in 40 CFR part 51,
subpart I, and specifically, in 40 CFR 51.160 through 51.166. The
requirements for SIPs for nonattainment areas are found in 51.165, but
this section does not stand alone and is part of a series of sections
that together, comprise the requirements for approvable SIP provisions
(e.g., 51.161 spells out the requirements for public notice and
comment; 51.164 the requirements for stack heights and dispersion
techniques). The provisions of subpart I are not written in the form of
an implementable permitting rule which applies to the owner or operator
of sources who wish to construct or modify, but rather they are
requirements that a state must meet in order to get its permitting
rules approved as part of the SIP. In contrast to the requirements for
nonattainment NSR, there are both SIP PSD requirements in 40 CFR 51.166
and a federal PSD program in 40 CFR 52.21, the latter being a
permitting rule with enforceable source obligations that meets the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.166. For a variety of reasons, many states
incorporate 40 CFR 52.21 into state rules as the state PSD program.
However, EPA does not have a similar implementable nonattainment NSR
permitting rule that can be directly incorporated by reference into
state rules. As a result, some states have incorporated by reference
all or parts of 40 CFR 51.165 into state rules for purposes of
nonattainment NSR, but such states generally integrate the portions of
51.165 into the states' existing permit program in such a way that
there is a nonattainment NSR permitting program with enforceable
provisions. In particular, the permit programs for Alaska, Idaho, and
Iowa cited by the commenter take this approach, as we detail below.
    In the case of Wyoming's submittal, the submittal fails to
integrate the incorporation by reference of 51.165 into the State's
permit program. Under Wyoming's SIP, the general construction permit
program (i.e. minor NSR and certain procedures and requirements that
are common to minor NSR and PSD) is set forth in WAQSR, Chapter 6,
Section 2, and the PSD program is set forth in WAQSR, Chapter 6,
Section 4. Notably, Wyoming's submittal containing the incorporation by
reference of 51.165 did not even modify Section 2. Thus, there is no
indication in Wyoming's permit program in Section 2 that any permit
should be governed by the federal rules in 40 CFR 51.165. This creates
several specific issues that we next discuss, but the overarching
problem is that Wyoming's permit program fails, because it lacks any
connection to Section 13, to impose nonattainment NSR requirements in
the UGRB.
    First, WAQSR, Chapter 6, Section 2(c)(v) provides that approval to
construct cannot be granted until the permit applicant demonstrates
that the facility will employ best available control technology (BACT).
This conflicts with the requirement for nonattainment NSR that the
facility be subject to the lowest achievable emission rate (LAER),
which is determined by a different and generally speaking more
stringent standard than BACT. Section 2 does not contain any provision
stating that LAER instead of BACT should apply in the UGRB as to ozone
precursor emissions. Thus, the submittal's incorporation by reference
of 51.165 without corresponding updates to Section 2 fails to impose an
enforceable obligation to meet the LAER requirement.
    Second, in the case of the Sheridan PM10 nonattainment
area, which was designated after the 1990 CAA Amendments, the State met
nonattainment NSR requirements by imposing a construction ban on new

major sources of PM10 and modifications that are major with
respect to PM10. See 59 FR 60902 (Nov. 29, 1994). This is
imposed in the SIP and integrated into the permit program through
Section 2(c)(ii)(B), which contains the details of the construction
ban. In contrast, Section 2 is devoid of any mention that different
requirements should apply in the UGRB. This creates two conflicts.
First, there is no enforceable obligation in the permit program to
satisfy nonattainment NSR requirements in the UGRB. In fact, under
Section 2 the only requirements that apply in the UGRB are minor NSR or
PSD, depending on applicability. Second, even if the State's
incorporation by reference of 51.165 could be understood to create a
permit program, 51.165 contains generally applicable requirements that
on their face apply in all nonattainment areas and are not limited to
the UGRB. Thus there would be two conflicting sets of requirements in
the Sheridan PM10 nonattainment area: One a construction ban
and the other a permission to construct if certain requirements (LAER,
offsets, etc.) are met.
    Third, Chapter 6, Section 2(k) sets forth certain categories of
sources that are entirely exempt from the obligation to get approval
for construction. However, Section 2(k) correctly recognizes that the
PSD program does not allow for source category-based exemptions and
therefore states that, notwithstanding these exemptions: ``any facility
which is a major emitting facility pursuant to the definition in
Chapter 6, Section 4 [i.e. PSD] shall comply with the requirements of
both Chapter 6, Sections 2 and 4.'' There is no corresponding provision
for the incorporation by reference of 51.165 in Section 13. However,
like PSD, the nonattainment NSR program does not allow for source
category-based exemptions. Furthermore, Chapter 6, Section 2(k) states
that any facility which is major under a state's definition must comply
with the PSD program. There is no mention that certain facilities in
the UGRB must comply with the provisions of Section 13.
    The nonattainment NSR programs cited by the commenter do not
contain the same approvability issues in Wyoming's May 10, 2011 SIP
submittal discussed above. In 79 FR 65366 (November 4, 2014), EPA
Region 10 proposed to approve the Alaska Part D nonattainment NSR rules
based on a finding that the Alaska nonattainment NSR rules in 18 AAC
50, Article 3, Section 311 ``Nonattainment area major stationary source
permits'' and 18 AAC 50.040(i) (incorporating by reference text from 40
CFR 51.165) met the requirements of the CAA and EPA's regulations for
SIP nonattainment NSR rules. 79 FR 65366. EPA Region 10 noted that 18
AAC 50.311 had previously been approved into the Alaska SIP on August
14, 2007 (72 FR45378) and had not been revised since that time. EPA
further explained that the primary changes proposed for approval in the
SIP revision were updating the effective dates of the federal
regulations previously adopted by reference in the Alaska SIP for
purposes of Alaska's Part D nonattainment NSR program.
    Unlike the Wyoming rule, which simply incorporates by reference the
planning requirements of 40 CFR 51.165 and does not link the federal
permitting requirements directly to Wyoming's existing state permitting
rules, Alaska has adopted a complete state permitting rule that
includes provisions that are specifically applicable to sources
locating in nonattainment areas, including state provisions specifying
the permissible location of offsets (see 18 AAC 50.311).\2\ This
provision makes clear that no source may commence construction of a
major stationary source, a major modification, or a ``PAL'' major
modification of a nonattainment pollutant in a nonattainment area
without obtaining a construction permit from the Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation. 18 AAC 50.311 also specifies what must be
included in an application for a Part D nonattainment NSR permit, such
as a demonstration that emissions of the nonattainment pollutant will
be controlled to a rate that represents the LAER, and documentation
that proposed emission offsets will be sufficient, enforceable, and
occur by the time the new or modified source begins operation. Finally,
that provision also specifies that the permit can only be issued if the
applicant demonstrates to the Alaska Department of Environmental
Conservation that the permitting requirements of 40 CFR 51.165 that
have been incorporated by reference in Alaska's rules will be met. The
Alaska incorporation by reference provision at 18 AAC 50.040(i)
explicitly states that it is adopting the text of the identified
provisions of 40 CFR 51.165 ``setting out provisions that a state
implementation plan shall or may contain.'' This makes clear that the
incorporated provisions of 40 CFR 51.165, including those specifying
that a ``state plan may contain . . .'', are requirements of Alaska's
Part D nonattainment NSR permitting program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ A memorandum with details of the Alaska program is provided
in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because Alaska's reliance on 40 CFR 51.165 as part of its Part D
nonattainment NSR program is part of an overall construction permitting
program that imposes additional requirements on new and modified major
sources located in nonattainment areas, and because Alaska's
incorporation by reference of text from 40 CFR 51.165 is clear with
respect to the intent of Alaska to adopt the permitting requirements as
Alaska law applicable to sources locating in nonattainment areas, the
Alaska program does not contain the issues identified above for
Wyoming's incorporation by reference of 40 CFR 51.165.
    Idaho's SIP approved Part D nonattainment NSR rules currently
incorporate by reference 40 CFR 51.165 (as well as all of 40 CFR part
51, subpart I) into IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS>.03.\3\ As was the case in 79 FR
11711 (March 3, 2014), Idaho annually updates its adoption by reference
of these EPA rules and EPA Region 10 has proposed to approve the
State's July 1, 2013, update to this incorporation by reference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A memorandum with details of the Idaho program is provided
in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Idaho has adopted a complete state permitting rule that includes
provisions that are specifically applicable to sources locating in
nonattainment areas, including state provisions specifying the
permissible location of offsets (see IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS> through 228 and
specifically 204 (PERMIT REQUIREMENTS FOR NEW MAJOR FACILITIES OR MAJOR
MODIFICATIONS IN NONATTAINMENT AREAS). These provisions make clear that
no source may commence construction of a new major facility or a major
modification in a nonattainment area without obtaining a construction
permit from the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality. IDAPA
<IP_ADDRESS> also points to IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS> for application
requirements and to IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS> for administrative processing
requirements. In addition, IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS> clearly states that ``The
intent of Section 204 is to incorporate the federal nonattainment NSR
rule requirements.'' IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS> then goes on in subsection .01
to specify exactly which provisions from 40 CFR 51.165 are incorporated
by reference for the purposes of Section 204. The effect of the
statement of intent and the identification of specific provisions makes
clear that these provisions of 40 CFR 51.165 are

requirements of Idaho's Part D nonattainment NSR permitting program.
    Because Idaho's reliance on 40 CFR 51.165 as part of its Part D
nonattainment NSR program is part of an overall construction permitting
program that imposes additional requirements on new and modified major
sources located in nonattainment areas, and because Idaho's
incorporation by reference of specific provisions from 40 CFR 51.165 at
IDAPA <IP_ADDRESS> is clear with respect to the intent of Idaho to
adopt the permitting requirements as state law applicable to sources
locating in nonattainment areas, the Idaho program does not contain the
issues identified above for Wyoming's incorporation by reference of 40
CFR 51.165.
    Iowa's SIP approved Part D nonattainment NSR rules were previously
adopted by rule into Iowa Administrative Code (IAC) 567-22.5(455B). In
an effort to streamline administrative rules and make them more user-
friendly, Iowa consolidated the nonattainment NSR provisions into IAC
567.31 (Chapter 31, Nonattainment Areas) in its submittal acted on by
EPA in 79 FR 27763 (May 15, 2014). In that submittal, the provisions of
the previous approved rule were retained by the Iowa Department of
Natural Resources, and were simply relocated to Chapter 31. The
relocated rules for the most part mirror language in 40 CFR 51.165,
with some modifications by the State. In fact, the public notice for
Iowa's rulemaking states: ``The federal regulations include many
instructions to the states that could be confusing for businesses if
the federal regulations were adopted by directly referencing the
federal regulations.''
    Iowa has adopted a complete state permitting rule that includes
provisions that are specifically applicable to sources locating in
nonattainment areas. Specifically, IAC 567-22.5(455B) (as revised in 79
FR 27763) and 567-31.1(455B) clearly state that no source may commence
construction of a new major facility or a major modification in a
nonattainment area without obtaining a construction permit from the
Iowa Department of Natural Resources. IAC 567-22.1(1)(455B) (Permits
Required for New or Existing Stationary Sources) also requires
compliance with 567-22.5(455B) and IAC 567-31.3(455B) for permits prior
to construction in nonattainment areas, and IAC 567-20.1 (Scope of
Title--Definitions--Forms--Rules of Practice) is linked to requirements
for areas designated as nonattainment.
    Because Iowa's language mirroring that in 40 CFR 51.165 is part of
an overall construction permitting program that imposes additional
requirements on new and modified major sources located in nonattainment
areas, the Iowa program does not contain the issues identified above
for Wyoming's incorporation by reference of 40 CFR 51.165.
    EPA has reviewed the SIPs cited by the commenter. While some of
them may have instances of language that are problematic, none of them
appear to have the same approvability flaws that we have identified
with Wyoming's submittal.\4\ In particular, none of them fail to create
an enforceable nonattainment NSR permitting program that we have
described here. And in any case, under section 110(k)(3) we must either
approve or disapprove Wyoming's submittal, and under section 110(l) we
cannot approve it. Therefore we must disapprove.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ As we did not propose any action on the SIPs cited by
commenter, we are not making any determination in this final action
with regards to those SIPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: EPA's proposed action depends on a strained interpretation
of the CAA. The commenter states that once a state submits its SIP to
EPA, EPA's reviewing authority is limited to determining whether the
SIP includes the requirements specified in Section 110(a)(2), and that
EPA may not substitute its own judgment for that of the state. The
commenter states that EPA proposes to find that Wyoming's plan is not
enforceable because Wyoming's incorporation by reference of federal
regulations includes language such as ``the plan shall provide'' and
``the plan shall require''. The commenter states that EPA claims that
this imbues Wyoming's plan with such ambiguity that it fails to create
enforceable obligations for sources in contravention of the
``enforceable emissions limitations'' requirement of Section
110(a)(2)(A), and that this is a strained and illogical interpretation
of carefully drafted federal regulations that were meant to provide
specific guidance to states in issuing permits in nonattainment areas.
According to the commenter, any member of the regulated community who
sees that Wyoming's regulations fully incorporate the federal
regulations will understand that their operations are subject to the
limits and restrictions imposed by the federal regulations.
    Response: We disagree. First, the commenter incorrectly
characterizes 40 CFR 51.165 as ``federal regulations that were meant to
provide specific guidance to States in issuing permits in nonattainment
areas.'' Instead, 40 CFR 51.165 contains the minimum requirements (not
``guidance'') for states to meet in plan provisions (not ``in issuing
permits'') for nonattainment areas. See 40 CFR 51.165(a). To use the
commenter's words, 51.165 is ``carefully drafted'' to define these
minimum requirements while allowing state plans to vary from them so
long as the minimum requirements are met. For example, 51.165(a)(1)
provides that states may vary from the specific definitions in
51.165(a)(1) if the state demonstrates that the replacement definitions
will be at least as stringent as all respects.
    We also disagree that the distinction between the minimum plan
requirements for a permitting program and the permitting program itself
is ``illogical.'' The actual program that a state adopts may meet the
minimum plan requirements in any number of ways. Wyoming should be
familiar with this distinction: As discussed above, the State chose to
impose a construction ban in the Sheridan PM10 nonattainment
area instead of creating a full nonattainment NSR permit program. And
for the State's PSD program, the State properly did not incorporate by
reference 51.166, but instead adopted language from federal rules. See
WAQSR, Chapter 6, Section 4.
    The commenter inaccurately describes phrases such as ``the plan
shall provide'' or ``the plan shall require'' as ``isolated.'' In fact,
virtually every source obligation in 51.165(b) is prefaced by such a
phrase. These are not ``isolated'' instances; they are ubiquitous.
    We also disagree that it is ``strained'' to be concerned with the
enforceability of the language that was incorporated. Faced with a
lawsuit for violation of nonattainment NSR requirements, an owner or
operator would naturally defend themselves by pointing out that the
language literally does not impose requirements on owners and
operators; instead it imposes requirements on state plans. While
perhaps that defense would not always be successful, we do not think
that Congress intended ``enforceable'' in section 110(a)(2)(A) to mean
``potentially enforceable depending on whether a court will agree with
the plaintiff's theory that the provision should not be read to mean
what it literally says.'' In other words, SIP provisions should not
unnecessarily create defenses that make enforceability a matter of
chance. Furthermore, we note that violations of nonattainment NSR
program requirements can expose owners and operators to civil and
criminal penalties. In such cases, courts have applied higher standards
and

resolved ambiguities in favor of defendants. With respect to the
comment's unsupported argument that any member of the regulated
community would necessarily understand the state's intent to impose
obligations on owners and operators, our response is first, that the
literal language of the rule as incorporated does not support that
intent. Second, the failure to integrate nonattainment NSR requirements
into the permitting program, as detailed above, could create confusion.
    Finally, we are not ``substituting our judgment for that of the
state.'' The State has not provided any binding interpretation of the
provisions that would render them enforceable. If that were possible to
do and the State had done so, this interpretation could have been
incorporated into the plan and potentially resolved at least some of
the issues. In response to the comment regarding our limited review
authority, we reiterate: ``The EPA may not approve any plan revision
`if the revision would interfere with any applicable requirement
concerning attainment and reasonable further progress . . . or any
other applicable requirement of [the Clean Air Act].' '' Oklahoma v.
EPA, 723 F.3d 1201, 1207 (10th Cir. 2013) (quoting section 110(l) of
the Act). We note that the commenter is also mistaken in asserting that
EPA is limited to review for compliance specifically with section
110(a)(2) of the Act \5\--instead under 110(l) EPA must ensure
compliance with all applicable requirements of the Act. In addition,
the SIP revision interferes with sections 110(a)(2)(A) and
110(a)(2)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The dicta quoted by the commenter from Train v. NRDC, 421
U.S. 60 (1975) referring to 110(a)(2) was discussing the 1970
version of the Clean Air Act. Section 110(l) was added in the 1990
Amendments. The applicable requirement in section 110(i) was added
in the 1977 Amendments. Applicable requirements for nonattainment
NSR programs were added in the 1977 Amendments and revised in the
1990 Amendments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: The commenter states that EPA should not threaten the
State of Wyoming with the loss of tens of millions of dollars in
highway funding. According to the commenter, this is an extreme
response to a disagreement over the proper method of incorporation by
reference of federal regulations. The commenter states that, in
response to its earlier commitment in a settlement, EPA now threatens
Wyoming with highway sanctions. The commenter then details a number of
serious concerns with highways.
    Response: We disagree that starting the sanctions clock is
inappropriate. We noted in our proposal that, under section 179(a) of
the CAA, our proposed disapproval would, if finalized, trigger the
sanctions clock. The conditions that trigger the sanctions clock are
set out in sections 179(a)(1) through (4). In this case, finalizing our
disapproval creates the condition in 179(a)(2): Disapproval under
section 110(k) of a submission for an area designated nonattainment (in
this case the UGRB) based on the submission's failure to meet one or
more of the elements required by the Act that are applicable to the
area (in this case, nonattainment NSR provisions identified above).
When this condition is met, 179(a) requires the Administrator to apply
one of the sanctions in 179(b) (highway and offset sanctions) unless
the deficiency has been corrected within 18 months, and to apply the
other sanction in 179(b) if the deficiency is not corrected within the
following six months. EPA's approach to the sequencing of sanctions is
set forth in the Order of Sanctions Rule. See 40 CFR 52.31. Despite its
tone, the comment does not dispute this point about the
nondiscretionary operation of the Act and therefore provides no
relevant reason that the sanctions clock should not be started by our
disapproval. With respect to the comment's concerns with the state
highways, we recognize those as serious. However, Congress decided that
certain means of highway funding should be contingent on avoiding the
circumstances in section 179(a), which Wyoming can do by developing an
approvable submittal.
    We also disagree with the comment's characterization of EPA's
action. First, the comment inaccurately characterizes EPA as
``threatening'' highway sanctions. As explained above, section 179(a)
of the Act requires that the sanctions clock start after EPA's
disapproval of a required element of a nonattainment plan. As a simple
matter of proper notice to the public, EPA had the responsibility in
our proposal to inform the public of this potential consequence of our
proposed disapproval. There was no ``threat'' involved in stating the
basic nondiscretionary operation of the CAA. The comment also without
any basis characterizes EPA's action as a ``departure from EPA's more
measured response throughout the country when disagreements have arisen
in the past.'' The comment did not identify any actions where EPA
disapproved a required nonattainment plan element and failed to start
the sanctions clock, and in any case the Act requires that the clock be
started.
    In general, EPA would prefer to work with states to develop
approvable submittals instead of disapproving flawed submittals and (in
the case of nonattainment plans) triggering clocks for sanctions and
FIP obligations. In this case, we were subject to a court-ordered
deadline to finalize action on the submittal. We are still happy to
work with the State to develop an approvable submittal, and we note
that, under the Order of Sanctions Rule, in certain circumstances EPA
can stay sanctions if the State has done so even before EPA takes final
action on the approvable submittal. See 40 CFR 52.31(d).

V. What action is EPA taking today?

    We have fully considered the comments we received, and have
concluded that no changes from our proposed rule are warranted. As
discussed in our proposal and this notice, our action is based on an
evaluation of Wyoming's rules against the requirements of CAA sections
110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(A), 110(i), 110(l), 172(c)(5), 172(c)(7), 173,
regulations at 40 CFR 51.165, and other requirements discussed in
section III of this action.
    As described in our proposed rulemaking, and in Section II of this
notice, EPA is approving the SIP revisions submitted by Wyoming on
February 13, 2013 and February 10, 2014.
    As described in our proposed rulemaking, and in Section III of this
notice, EPA is disapproving the portion of the SIP revisions submitted
by Wyoming on May 10, 2011 that adds Chapter 6, Section 13 to the
Wyoming SIP.
    We are sensitive to the concerns expressed in the State's comments.
We also understand the State's goals in promulgating Chapter 6, Section
13, to have a SIP-approved permit program for sources located in
nonattainment areas. We intend to work with the State to develop
revised rules that are consistent with the State goals and consistent
with the CAA and implementing regulations.

VI. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable federal regulations 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
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
in 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 Clean Air Act; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by April 21, 2015. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See CAA 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.

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

    Dated: January 30, 2015.
Debra H. Thomas,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart ZZ--Wyoming

0
2. In Sec.  52.2620, the table in paragraph (c)(1) is amended under
Chapter 3 by removing the entry for Section 4 and by adding the entry
for Section 9 to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2620  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         State adopted
          State citation              Title/subject      and effective   EPA approval date       Explanations
                                                             date         and citation \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Chapter 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Section 9........................  Incorporation by         9/12/2013,  2/20/2015, [insert
                                    reference.              11/22/2013   Federal Register
                                                                         citation].

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In order to determine the EPA effective date for a specific provision that is listed in this table, consult
  the Federal Register cited in this column for that particular provision.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2015-03180 Filed 2-19-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 216 (Thursday, November 9, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51979-51981]
[FR Doc No: 2017-24462]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0988; Product Identifier 2017-NE-37-AD; Amendment
39-19097; AD 2017-23-03]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Engine Alliance Turbofan Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: We are superseding Emergency Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2017-21-51 for all Engine Alliance (EA) GP7200 series turbofan engines.
AD 2017-21-51 was sent previously to all known U.S. owners and
operators of GP7200 series turbofan engines. AD 2017-21-51 required
visual inspections of all fan hubs for damage. This AD retains the same
required actions as AD 2017-21-51 and clarifies the compliance
requirements. This AD was prompted by the failure of a GP7200 fan hub.
We are issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these
products.

DATES: This AD is effective November 24, 2017.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of November 24,
2017.
    We must receive any comments on this AD by December 26, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this final rule, contact
Engine Alliance, 400 Main St., East Hartford, CT 06108, M/S 169-10;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected]; Web site:
www.engineallianceportal.com. You may view this service information at
the FAA, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, 1200 District Avenue,
Burlington, MA. For information on the availability of this material at
the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the Internet at
http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No.
FAA-2017-0988.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2017-
0988; or in person at the Docket

Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this final rule, the
regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information.
The street address for the Docket Office (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in
the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Bethka, Aerospace Engineer, ECO
Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: 781-
238-7129; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    On October 12, 2017, we issued Emergency AD 2017-21-51, (``AD 2017-
21-51''), which was immediately effective to owners and operators of EA
GP7200 series turbofan engines. AD 2017-21-51 required visual
inspections of the GP7200 series engine fan hubs for damage. AD 2017-
21-51 resulted from an uncontained engine failure that occurred on an
EA GP7270 turbofan engine. We issued AD 2017-21-51 to prevent an
uncontained release of the fan hub, damage to the engine, and damage to
the airplane.

Actions Since AD 2017-21-51 Was Issued

    Since we issued AD 2017-21-51, we determined a need to clarify the
compliance requirements. We are issuing this AD to correct the unsafe
condition on these products.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    We reviewed EA Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) EAGP7-A72-383, Revision
No. 1, dated October 12, 2017. The ASB describes procedures for visual
inspections of all fan hubs for damage. This service information is
reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it
through their normal course of business or by the means identified in
the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination

    We are issuing this AD because we evaluated all the relevant
information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is
likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

AD Requirements

    This AD requires visual inspections of all fan hubs for damage.

Interim Action

    We consider this AD interim action. An investigation to determine
the cause of the failure is on-going and we may consider additional
rulemaking if final action is identified.

FAA's Justification and Determination of the Effective Date

    An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of
this AD without providing an opportunity for public comments prior to
adoption. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public
justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule
because no U.S. operators are affected. Therefore, we find good cause
that notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable.
In addition, for the reason stated above, we find that good cause
exists for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days.

Comments Invited

    This AD is a final rule that involves requirements affecting flight
safety, and we did not provide you with notice and an opportunity to
provide your comments before it becomes effective. However, we invite
you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this final
rule. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES
section. Include the docket number FAA-2017-0988 and product identifier
2017-NE-37-AD at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite
comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy
aspects of this final rule. We will consider all comments received by
the closing date and may amend this final rule because of those
comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this final rule.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects no engines installed on airplanes
of U.S. registry.
    We estimate the following costs to comply with this AD:

                                                 Estimated Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Cost per      Cost on U.S.
               Action                         Labor cost            Parts cost        product        operators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fan hub inspection.................  2 work-hours x $85 per hour              $0            $170              $0
                                      = $170.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.
    This AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated by the
Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as authorized by
FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order, issuance of ADs is
normally a function of the Compliance and Airworthiness Division, but
during this transition period, the Executive Director has delegated the
authority to issue ADs applicable to engines, propellers, and
associated appliances to the Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards
Branch, Policy and Innovation Division.

Regulatory Findings

    This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order
13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    (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),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, to the extent
that it justifies making a regulatory distinction, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA amends part 39 of the Federal Aviation
Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2017-23-03 Engine Alliance: Amendment 39-19097; Docket No. FAA-2017-
0988; Product Identifier 2017-NE-37-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD is effective November 24, 2017.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes Emergency AD 2017-21-51, Product Identifier
2017-NE-37-AD, issued on October 12, 2017.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all Engine Alliance (EA) GP7270, GP7272, and
GP7277 model turbofan engines.

(d) Subject

    Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7230, Turbine Engine
Compressor Section.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by failure of a fan hub. We are issuing
this AD to prevent failure of the fan hub. The unsafe condition, if
not corrected, could result in uncontained release of the fan hub,
damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Required Actions

    (1) Perform a visual inspection of the fan hub in accordance
with the Accomplishment Instructions, paragraph 1.B., 1.C., and
1.D., of EA Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) EAGP-A72-383, Revision No.
1, dated October 12, 2017, at the times specified in paragraphs
(g)(1)(i) through (iii) of this AD.
    (i) For fan hubs with 3,500 cycles since new (CSN) or more on
the effective date of this AD, inspect within 2 weeks after the
effective date of this AD.
    (ii) For fan hubs with 2,000 CSN or more, but less than 3,500
CSN, on the effective date of this AD, inspect within 5 weeks after
the effective date of this AD.
    (iii) For fan hubs with less than 2,000 CSN on the effective
date of this AD, inspect within 8 weeks after the effective date of
this AD.
    (2) If defects or damage to the fan hub are found outside the
serviceable limits specified in Table 1 of EA ASB EAGP7-A72-383,
Revision No. 1, dated October 12, 2017, remove the hub from service
and replace with a part that passed the inspection specified in
paragraph (g)(1) of this AD, prior to further flight.

(h) Credit for Previous Actions

    You may take credit for the inspection required by paragraph
(g)(1) of this AD if you performed the inspection before the
effective date of this AD, using EA ASB EAGP7-A72-383, dated October
7, 2017.

(i) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, ECO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve
AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your
principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as
appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the
certification office, send it to the attention of the person
identified in paragraph (j) of this AD. Information may be emailed
to: [email protected].
    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.

(j) Related Information

    For more information about this AD, contact David Bethka,
Aerospace Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue,
Burlington, MA 01803; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
[email protected].

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Engine Alliance Alert Service Bulletin EAGP7-A72-383,
Revision No. 1, dated October 12, 2017.
    (ii) Reserved.
    (3) For Engine Alliance service information identified in this
AD, contact Engine Alliance, 400 Main St., East Hartford, CT 06108,
M/S 169-10, phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email: [email protected]; Web site:
www.engineallianceportal.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at FAA, Engine and
Propeller Standards Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA.
For information on the availability of this material at the FAA,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on November 6, 2017.
Robert J. Ganley,
Manager, Engine and Propeller Standards Branch, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2017-24462 Filed 11-8-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: March 30, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 61)]
[Notices]
[Page 16183]
[DOCID:fr30mr06-99]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon written request, copies available from: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, DC
20549.

Extension: Rule 15c2-7; SEC File No. 270-420; OMB Control No. 3235-
0479.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (``OMB'') a request for extension of the previously approved
collection of information discussed below.
     Rule 15c2-7, Identification of Quotations
    Rule 15c2-7 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (17 CFR
240.15c2-7) enumerates the requirements with which brokers and dealers
must comply when submitting a quotation for a security (other than a
municipal security) to an inter-dealer quotation system.
    It is estimated that there are 8,500 brokers and dealers. Industry
personnel estimate that approximately 900 notices are filed pursuant to
Rule 15c2-7 annually. Based on industry estimates that respondents
complying with Rule 15c2-7 spend 30 seconds to add notice of an
arrangement and 1 minute to delete notice of an arrangement, the staff
estimates that, on an annual basis, respondents spend a total of 11.25
hours to comply with Rule 15c2-7, based upon past submissions. The
average cost per hour is approximately $35. Therefore, the total cost
of compliance for brokers and dealers is approximately $393.75
    The retention period for the recordkeeping requirement under Rule
15c2-7 is three years following the date a quotation is submitted. The
recordkeeping requirement under this Rule is mandatory to assist the
Commission with monitoring brokers and dealers who submit quotations to
an inter-dealer quotation system. This rule does not involve the
collection of confidential information. Please note that an agency may
not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a
collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control
number.
    General comments regarding the estimated burden hours should be
directed to the following persons: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities
and Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office
Building, Washington, DC 20503 or by sending an e-mail to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief

Information Officer, C/O Shirley Martinson, 6432 General Green Way,
Alexandria, Virginia 22312 or send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of this notice.

    Dated: March 23, 2006.
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-4625 Filed 3-29-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


                                 Attachment G
Respondent Response to the Consolidated Pesticide Registration Activities Questionnaire

1.	Publicly Available Data
●	Is the information that the Agency seeks available from any public source or already collected by another office at EPA or by another agency?
Comment: All of the information the Agency seeks is usually not available from public sources.
●	If yes, where can you find the data?

2.	Frequency of Collection
●	Can the Agency collect the information less frequently and still produce the same outcome?
Comment: I believe it's important for the Agency to have possession of the most current documentation pertaining to the products which they register.  This information is not normally found in its entirety from other agencies and is important to ensure with a high level of confidence these products when following the label are safe when it comes to human health and the environment.

3.	Clarity of Instructions
The ICR requires that respondents provide certain data so that the Agency can utilize them.
●	Based on the reporting activities described in the supporting statement, is it clear what you are required to do and how to submit the information?
Comment:  The reporting activities described in the supporting statement was clear and it was understood that supportive data should be provided to justify responses.
●	If not, what suggestions do you have to clarify the instructions?
●	Do you understand the format of the consolidated ICR?
Comment:   I do understand the format of the consolidated ICR.
●	Can you locate the information relevant to your reporting and recordkeeping requirements?
Comment: Yes, we can locate the information relevant to reporting and record-keeping.
●	Do you understand that you are required to maintain records?  We do maintain both hard-copy and digital records for all the products registered for New Jersey.
Comment:  The information requirements for reporting is easily obtained from the EPA websites.  This also includes the record keeping requirements.
●	Regarding the pesticide registration forms, do you use them? Are they clear, logical, and easy to complete?
Comment:  Yes, we do use the pesticide registration forms.  Since I work with the registration of special pesticide products, Form 8570-25 is used on a regular basis.  The form is helpful, clear, and easy to work with.  Our pesticide program maintains the records of all the pesticide products registered for New Jersey.

4.	Electronic Reporting and Record keeping
The Government Paperwork Elimination Act requires agencies make available to the public electronic reporting alternatives to paper-based submissions by 2003, unless there is a strong reason for not doing so. One such reason was that, before September 2015, the Agency was unable to ensure the security of CBI that might be transmitted over the Internet.
::	Although the Agency does not offer an electronic reporting option at this time, what format other than paper would you be more inclined to submit section 18 and/or 24(c) submissions?
Comment: Traditionally we would submit paper copies of both section 18 and 24(c) registrations through a carrier service.  The submission of section 18 registrations through email has certainly helped our program since our resources are limited.  Recently, temporary approval of section 24(c) submissions through email because of the pandemic has helped our program even more.  The majority of special pesticide registrations in New Jersey consist mainly of special local need products, so having the option to submit 24(c) registrations through email reduces our burden in New Jersey.
::	What benefits would electronic submission bring you in terms of burden reduction or greater efficiency in compiling the information?
Comment: Electronic submission for both section 18 and 24(c) registrations would significantly reduce the burden to our pesticide program and would allow us to compile more useful information for submittal.

5.	Burden and Costs
::	Are the labor rates accurate?  It is hard to determine if the labor rates are accurate since each state operates differently.
Comment:  It is an expense to maintain the operation of section 3 registrations along with the special pesticide registrations.  The capital investment and maintenance involved with a data system to run a successful operation would be in the area of $174,892,655.
::	The Agency assumes there is no capital cost associated with this activity. Is that correct?
Comment:  Initially there is a capital cost associated with the pesticide operation in developing a data system to track registration status, maintain records, and payment of products registered with New Jersey.  Once established the capital expense is minimum.
::	Bearing in mind that the burden and cost estimates include only burden hours and costs associated with the paperwork involved with this ICR, e.g., the ICR does not include estimated burden hours and costs for conducting studies, are the estimated burden hours and labor rates accurate?
Comment:   Once again it is hard to estimate from my point of view since I am only involved with the registration of special pesticide products, however the estimate appears to be fair.
::	Have you incurred additional paperwork burden as a result of third-party disclosure requirements involving disclosing product specific information to potential users and the general public through the pesticide label?
Comment: There has been no burden on the part of New Jersey pertaining to the discloser of product specific information to potential users or the general public through the pesticide label.

  ::	Are there other costs that should be accounted for that may have been missed?
Comment:   I am not aware of any additional costs that may have been overlooked.

6.	Response to Emergency Exemption Process Revisions
●	How has the streamlined application process impacted your division as it pertains to the following:
●	Recertification of certain repeat emergency exemptions?
Comment: The state of New Jersey does not have any current section 18 registrations so there hasn't been a recertification since 2018.

●	The criteria used to determine when a potential emergency condition is expected to cause a significant economic loss and the data requirements used to document the loss?
Comment: In the past obtaining the data required to determine if a significant economic loss would occur was not a problem, since professionals such as the staff at Rutgers Agricultural Extension offices would be able to provide it for specific emergency exemptions.

7.	Has the application and review process for submitting repeat emergency exemptions improved since the regulation went into effect March 28, 2006?
Comment:  I was not working on emergency exemption registrations back in 2006, however the process of repeat or amended section 18 submittals is not a burden.


[Federal Register: March 18, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 53)]
[Notices]
[Page 14516-14517]
[DOCID:fr18mr08-127]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-57479; File No. SR-CHX-2008-03]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rules Relating to
Fingerprinting

March 12, 2008.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on February 26, 2008, the Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc. (``CHX'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the CHX. 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

    CHX proposes to amend its rules relating to the fingerprinting of
Exchange staff and other persons. The text of this proposed rule change
is available at the Exchange, the Commission's Public Reference Room,
and at http://www.chx.com/content/Participant_Information/Rules_
Filings.html.

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 CHX included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received regarding the proposal. The text of
these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV
below. The CHX 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
    As part of its trading model rule set, the Exchange included a
fingerprint rule that requires the Exchange to conduct fingerprint-
based background checks of Exchange staff, certain independent
contractors and other persons that have regular access to the
Exchange's facilities and premises.\3\ The Exchange seeks to amend this
rule to remove any requirement that the Exchange conduct these
fingerprint-based background checks. The Exchange believes that, where
appropriate, it can conduct necessary background checks of staff and
consultants through more efficient means. This proposal has no impact
on the fingerprinting obligations that apply to Exchange participants
and participant firm personnel. The Exchange will continue to require
its participants to adhere to applicable fingerprinting obligations.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Article 6, Rule 10(b) of the Exchange's Rules.
    \4\ See Article 6, Rule 10(a) of the Exchange's Rules; see also
Section 17(f)(2) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 78q(f)(2)) and Rule 17f-2
thereunder (17 CFR 240.17f-2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The CHX believes the proposal is consistent with the requirements
of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable
to a national securities exchange, and, in particular, with the
requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\5\ The proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \6\ because it would promote
just and equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to, and

perfect the mechanism of, a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, protect investors and the public interest by
allowing the Exchange the flexibility to conduct background checks of
staff, independent contractors and other persons using the means deemed
most efficient by Exchange management.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such other period: (i) As the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve the proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-CHX-2008-03 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File No. SR-CHX-2008-03. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/
sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection and
copying in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing will also be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the CHX. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File No. SR-CHX-2008-03 and should be
submitted on or before April 8, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-5426 Filed 3-17-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 101 (Wednesday, May 25, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33216-33217]
[FR Doc No: 2016-12328]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program: Proposed Findings
Document and Programmatic Environmental Assessment

AGENCY: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S.
Department of Commerce, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of availability of Proposed Findings Document and
Programmatic Environmental Assessment on approval of the Coastal
Nonpoint Pollution Control Program for Illinois.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the availability of the Proposed
Findings Document and Programmatic Environmental Assessment for
Illinois' Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program. Coastal states
and territories are required to submit their coastal nonpoint programs
to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for approval. The Findings
Document was prepared by NOAA and the EPA to provide the rationale for
the agencies' decision to approve, with conditions, the state coastal
nonpoint pollution control program. The Coastal Zone Act
Reauthorization Amendments (CZARA) requires states and territories with
coastal zone management programs that have received approval under the
Coastal Zone Management Act to develop and implement coastal nonpoint
programs. The Programmatic Environmental Assessment was prepared by
NOAA, pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), to
assess the environmental impacts associated with the approval of the
coastal nonpoint pollution control program submitted to NOAA and the
EPA by Illinois.
    NOAA and the EPA have proposed to approve, with conditions, the
coastal nonpoint program submitted by Illinois.

DATES: Individuals or organizations wishing to submit comments on the
proposed Findings or Programmatic Environmental Assessment should do so
by June 24, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be made to: Joelle Gore, Chief, Stewardship
Division (N/OCM6), ATTN: Illinois Coastal Nonpoint Program, Office for
Coastal Management, NOS, NOAA, 1305

East-West Highway, Silver Spring, Maryland, 20910, phone (240) 533-
0813, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Copies of the proposed Findings
Document and Programmatic Environmental Assessment may be found on the
NOAA Web site at http://coast.noaa.gov/czm/pollutioncontrol/ or may be
obtained upon request from: Allison Castellan, Stewardship Division (N/
OCM6), Office for Coastal Management, NOS, NOAA, 1305 East-West
Highway, Silver Spring, Maryland, 20910, phone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The requirements of 40 CFR parts 1500-1508
(Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations to implement the
National Environmental Policy Act) apply to the preparation of
Environmental Assessments. Specifically, 40 CFR 1506.6 requires
agencies to provide public notice of the availability of environmental
documents. This notice is part of NOAA's action to comply with this
requirement.

(Federal Domestic Assistance Catalog 11.419 Coastal Zone Management
Program Administration)

    Dated: May 18, 2016.
W. Russell Callender,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Ocean Services, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration.
Joel Beauvais,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Water, Environmental
Protection Agency.
[FR Doc. 2016-12328 Filed 5-24-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 3510-08-P