[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 149 (Friday, August 2, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37812-37816]
[FR Doc No: 2019-16204]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2019-0221; FRL-9997-13-Region 1]

Air Plan Approval; Vermont; Reasonably Available Control
Technology for the 2008 and 2015 Ozone Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing
approval of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
State of Vermont. The SIP revision consists of a demonstration that
Vermont meets the requirements of reasonably available control
technology (RACT) for the two precursors for ground-level ozone, oxides
of nitrogen (NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs), set
forth by the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) with respect to the 2008 and
2015 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQSs or
standards). This action is being taken in accordance with the Act.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before September 3,
2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-
OAR-2019-0221 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, 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, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. Publicly
available docket materials are available at https://www.regulations.gov
or at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 1 Regional
Office, Air and Radiation Division, Air Quality Branch, 5 Post Office
Square--Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at all possible,
you contact the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
excluding legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David L. Mackintosh, Air Quality
Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 1, 5 Post
Office Square--Suite 100, (Mail Code 05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912, tel.
617-918-1584, email [email protected]

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Summary of Vermont's SIP Revision
III. EPA's Evaluation of the Submittal
    A. NOX RACT for Major Sources
    B. Non-CTG VOC RACT for Major Sources
    C. CTG VOC RACT
IV. Proposed Action
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

I. Background

    Vermont is part of the Ozone Transport Region (OTR) under Section
184(a) of the CAA. Sections 182(b)(2) and 184 of the CAA require states
with ozone nonattainment areas that are classified as moderate or
above, as well as areas in the OTR, to submit a SIP revision requiring
the implementation of reasonably available control technology (RACT)
for sources covered by a control techniques guideline (CTG) and for all
major sources. A CTG is a document issued by EPA which establishes a
``presumptive norm'' for RACT for a specific VOC source category. RACT
is defined as the lowest emission limitation that a particular source
is capable of meeting by the application of control technology that is
reasonably available considering technological and economic
feasibility.\1\ The CTGs usually identify a particular control level
which EPA recommends as being RACT. States are required to address RACT
for the source categories covered by CTGs through adoption of rules as
part of the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Memorandum from Roger Strelow, Assistant Administrator
for Air and Waste Management, U.S. EPA, to Regional Administrators,
U.S. EPA, ``Guidance for Determining Acceptability of SIP
Regulations in Non-Attainment Areas'' (Dec. 9, 1976); see also 44 FR
53761, 53762 (September 17, 1979).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 5, 2006 (71 FR 58745), EPA issued four new CTGs, which
applicable areas were required to address by October 5, 2007:
Industrial Cleaning Solvents, Offset Lithographic Printing and
Letterpress Printing; Flexible Package Printing; and Flat Wood Paneling
Coatings. On October 9, 2007 (72 FR 57215), EPA issued three more CTGs,
which applicable areas were required to address by October 9, 2008:
Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings; Large Appliance Coatings; and Metal
Furniture Coatings. On October 7, 2008 (73 FR 58841), EPA issued an
additional four CTGs, which applicable areas were required to address
by October 7, 2009: Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coatings;
Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials; Miscellaneous Industrial
Adhesives; and Automobile and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings.
Lastly, on Oct 27, 2016 (81 FR 74798), EPA issued the most recent CTG
for the Oil and Natural Gas Industry, which applicable areas were
required to address by October 27, 2018.
    On March 27, 2008 (73 FR 16436), EPA revised the health-based NAAQS
for ozone to 0.075 parts per million (ppm), averaged over an 8-hour
timeframe. EPA determined that the revised 8-hour standard would be
more protective of human health, especially with regard to children and
adults who are active outdoors and individuals with a pre-existing
respiratory diseases such as asthma.
    On July 19, 2011 (76 FR 42560), EPA issued a Direct Final Rule
Approving Vermont RACT for the 1997 8-Hour ozone NAAQS. In its
approval, EPA conditionally approved permit conditions for Churchill
Coatings Corporation and H.B.H. Prestain, Inc. into the Vermont SIP.
    On March 6, 2015 (80 FR 12264), EPA published a final rule
outlining RACT requirements and requiring states in the OTR to certify
RACT requirements by July 20, 2014. This rule, referred to as the
``2008 Ozone Implementation Rule,'' contains a description of EPA's
expectations for states with RACT obligations. The 2008 Ozone
Implementation Rule gives states several options for meeting RACT
requirements for the 2008 ozone standard. States may (1) establish new
or more stringent rules that meet RACT control levels for the 2008
standard; (2) certify, where appropriate, that previously adopted RACT
rules approved by EPA under a prior ozone standard represent adequate

RACT control levels for the 2008 ozone NAAQS; or (3) submit a negative
declaration in instances where there are no sources in the state
covered by a specific CTG source category. States may use these options
alone or in combination to demonstrate compliance with RACT
requirements.
    On October 26, 2015 (80 FR 65291), EPA revised the health-based
NAAQS for ozone, setting it at 0.070 ppm averaged over an 8-hour time
frame. On December 6, 2018 (83 FR 62998), EPA published a final rule
that outlines the obligations for areas in nonattainment with the 2015
ozone standard, as well as obligations for areas in the OTR. This rule,
referred to as the ``2015 Ozone Implementation Rule,'' requires states
in the OTR to certify RACT requirements by August 3, 2020.
    On February 3, 2017 (82 FR 9158), EPA published a final rule
finding that Vermont, as well as 14 other states and the District of
Columbia, had failed to submit SIP revisions in a timely manner to
satisfy certain requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. With respect to
Vermont, EPA found that the state had failed to submit three required
SIP elements: NOX RACT for Major Sources; Non-CTG VOC RACT
for Major Sources; and CTG VOC RACT. Id. at 9162. This finding became
effective March 6, 2017, and started a SIP sanctions clock, which
required the missing SIP elements to be submitted and deemed complete
before September 6, 2018. Id. at 9160-61.

II. Summary of Vermont's SIP Revision

    On September 6, 2018, Vermont submitted a SIP revision to address
its RACT requirements set forth by the CAA for the 2008 and 2015 8-hour
ozone NAAQSs (i.e., RACT Certification). Also, on September 6, 2018,
EPA determined that Vermont's SIP submittal was administratively and
technically complete. This determination stopped the 18-month sanctions
clock for all three of Vermont's outstanding RACT SIP submittal
elements. Because the sanctions clock stopped on September 6, 2018,
sanctions had no effect in the state of Vermont for the February 2017
finding of failure to submit (82 FR 9158).
    Vermont's RACT Certification submittal is based on the fact that
(1) all required RACT controls, both major sources and those subject to
CTGs, are being implemented in Vermont and will be part of the Vermont
SIP upon final approval of this EPA action; (2) previously approved
controls, not being revised herein, continue to represent RACT for the
2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQS; and (3) Vermont has no applicable sources
for 29 CTG categories for which negative declarations are described in
Section III.
    Specifically, Vermont's September 2018 SIP revision contains: A
certification that Vermont has met all RACT requirements for the 2008
and 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS with negative declarations for 29 CTG
categories; the addition of Vermont Air Pollution Control Regulations
(APCRs) 5-253.8 Industrial Adhesives, 5-253.9 Offset Lithographic and
Letterpress Printing, and 5-253.17 Industrial Solvent Cleaning to the
Vermont SIP; revisions to Vermont APCRs 5-253.12 Coating of Flat Wood
Paneling and 5-253.13 Coating of Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic;
revisions to single-source requirements for ``Isovolta Inc. (Formerly
U.S. Samica, Inc.) Operating Permit RACT provisions'', ``Killington/
Pico Ski Resort Partners, LLC. Operating Permit RACT provisions,'' and
``Okemo Limited Liability Company Operating Permit RACT provisions'';
and withdrawal of the single-source requirements for ``Churchill
Coatings Corporation Operating Permit RACT conditions'' and ``H.B.H
Prestain, Inc.''

III. EPA's Evaluation of the Submittal

A. NOX RACT for Major Sources

    Section 182 of the CAA requires RACT be applied to any major
existing stationary source in the OTR with the potential to emit 100
tons or greater per year of NOX. Vermont's NOX
RACT regulation applies to all sources with potential NOX
emissions of 100 tons per year, or greater, APCR 5-251(2)(a), unless
they are already subject to a more stringent level of NOX
control (i.e., new source review), id. 5-251(2)(c). Subsection 5-
521(2)(a) does not set specific NOX emission limitations or
technology standards, but rather requires that sources have RACT
defined on a case-by-case basis by VT ANR. Such case-specific RACT
determinations must then be approved by EPA as revisions to Vermont's
SIP. In 2011 (76 FR 42560), EPA approved APCR 5-251(2) as meeting
NOX RACT requirements for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. EPA proposes
that APCR 5-251(2) continues to represent RACT for applicable major
stationary sources of NOX in Vermont for the 2008 and 2015
ozone standards.
    Vermont has determined that it has only five operating sources with
the potential to emit greater than 100 tons per year of NOX,
as described in Table 3a of Vermont's September 2018 SIP Revision. Of
these five sources, only two are subject to NOX RACT under
APCR 5-251(2)(a). The source-specific requirements for these two
facilities, Killington/Pico Ski Resort Partners, LLC and Okemo Limited
Liability Company, were last approved into the Vermont SIP by EPA on
July 19, 2011 (76 FR 42560). The relevant NOX RACT
requirements for these two facilities are included in this submittal
and contain NOX emission limits that have been further
reduced. EPA proposes to adopt the revisions into Vermont's SIP as
RACT. The other three sources, Joseph C. McNeil Generating Station,
OMYA, Inc. Vermont Marble Power Division, and Ryegate Power Station,
are each subject to major new source review permitting under APCR 5-
502, ``Major Stationary Sources and Major Modifications,'' and thus are
subject to most stringent emission rate (MSER), which exceed, or are no
less stringent than, RACT.
    After reviewing existing stationary NOX sources in
Vermont, the EPA agrees with Vermont's determination that requirements
for major sources of NOX meet, or are more stringent than,
RACT requirements. Herein, EPA proposes that the above controls
represent RACT for these NOX sources in Vermont for the 2008
and 2015 ozone standards because no new control technologies are known
to be reasonably available considering technological and economic
feasibility for these sources since our last approval.

B. Non-CTG VOC RACT for Major Sources

    Section 184(b)(2) of the CAA requires RACT be applied to any major
existing stationary source with the potential to emit 50 tons or
greater per year of VOCs. Vermont's APCR 5-253.20 applies to all
sources with potential VOC emissions of 50 tons per year, or greater,
that are not regulated under a CTG specific regulation. In 2011 (76 FR
42560), EPA approved APCR 5-253.20 as meeting RACT requirements for the
1997 ozone NAAQS. EPA proposes that APCR 5-253.20 continues to
represent RACT for applicable major stationary sources of VOCs in
Vermont for the 2008 and 2015 ozone standards.
    Vermont has determined it has only five operating sources with the
potential to emit greater than 50 tons per year of VOCs, as described
in Table 2 of Vermont's September 2018 SIP Revision. Two of these
sources (Ethan Allen Orleans and Ethan Allen Beecher Falls) are subject
to the wood furniture CTG RACT in APCR 5-253.16, approved by EPA on
July 19, 2011 (76 FR 42560). Two sources (Churchill Coatings
Corporation and HBH Holdings LLC) were previously subject to source-
specific RACT orders but are now subject to the revised Flat Wood

Paneling CTG RACT in APCR 5-253.12 and being proposed to be adopted in
to the VT SIP in this action (discussed later in the ``CTG VOC RACT''
section of this notice). Thus, Vermont requests the prior single source
RACT determinations for these two facilities be withdrawn and
regulation 5-253.12 Coating of Flat Wood Paneling now constitutes RACT
in lieu of the previous source-specific RACT conditions.
    The remaining single-source RACT order facility, Isovolta, Inc.
(formerly US Samica Corporation), had previously been approved by EPA
on April 9, 1997. This order was updated on January 6, 2006, and
Vermont has submitted the relative portions of the single-source
requirements with its September 2018 RACT submittal. The provisions
being added to the SIP contain specific compliance assurance
requirements, such as, pollution control device monitoring and function
testing, plus general recordkeeping and reporting requirements, all of
which are required as part of an approvable RACT control.
    After reviewing existing stationary VOC sources in Vermont, the EPA
agrees with Vermont's determination that the requirements for major
sources of VOC meet RACT requirements. EPA proposes that APCR 5-253.20
and the one remaining source-specific determination represent RACT for
major VOC sources in Vermont for the 2008 and 2015 ozone standard
because no new control technologies are known to be reasonably
available considering technological and economic feasibility for these
sources since our last approval.

C. CTG VOC RACT

    Vermont's submittal requests that EPA approve three APCRs for CTG
VOC RACT in to the VT SIP: 5-253.8 Industrial Adhesives; 5-253.9 Offset
Lithographic and Letterpress Printing; and 5-253.17 Industrial Solvent
Cleaning. The submittal also requests that two APCRs for CTG VOC RACT
currently in the SIP be replaced with revised APCRs that Vermont has
since promulgated: 5-253.12 Coating of Flat Wood Paneling; and 5-253.13
Coating of Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts. Vermont certifies
that the remining VOC RACT rules, previously approved by EPA on
September 19, 2011 (76 FR 42560), continue to represent RACT for the
2008 and 2015 ozone NAAQSs.
    The addition of APCR 5-253.8 Industrial Adhesives to the VT SIP
generally applies to any person in Vermont that uses or supplies
industrial adhesive or adhesive primer, with certain exceptions noted
in the rule. The new rule is consistent with the recommendations for
RACT found in EPA's CTG for Miscellaneous Industrial Adhesives (EPA-
453/R-08-005, September 2008). Applicable persons are required to use
low-VOC adhesives and primers or limit their VOC emissions by using
add-on control equipment with an overall control efficiency of 90%. The
new regulation also specifies application methods, as well as work
practices for waste and cleaning materials, to further limit VOC
emissions from industrial adhesive activities.
    The addition of APCR 5-253.9 Offset Lithographic and Letterpress
Printing to the VT SIP applies to graphic arts operations that use the
offset lithographic printing process. The new rule is consistent with
the recommendations for RACT found in EPA's CTG for Offset Lithographic
Printing and Letterpress Printing (EPA-453/R-06-002, September 2006).
The threshold applicability consists of 15 lbs/day for fountain
solutions and cleaning materials and 25 tons per year for heat-set
dryers. Applicable sources are required to limit the VOC content of
inks, coatings, adhesives, and cleaning solvents or use VOC pollution
control devices. These sources are also required to follow work
practices for material application, storage, spill cleanup, and
containment as well as maintain records of the regulated materials
used.
    Vermont's APCR 5-253.12 Coating of Flat Wood Paneling was
previously approved by EPA on April 22, 1998 (63 FR 19829). The revised
rule applies to flat wood paneling coating sources that emit at least 3
tons per 12-month rolling period of VOC before consideration of
controls. Flat wood paneling coatings means wood paneling products that
are any interior, exterior or tileboard (class I hardboard) panel to
which a protective, decorative, or functional material or layer has
been applied. The revised rule now includes coating of clapboards, for
which Vermont has several applicable facilities. The new rule is
generally consistent EPA's CTG for Flat Wood Paneling Coatings (EPA-
453/R-06-004, September 2006), with the exception of coating of certain
solid wood exterior siding, discussed in more detail below. Applicable
sources are required to limit VOC emissions by adding on a pollution
control device with 90% efficiency or by limiting VOC content in
coatings to either: 2.9 lbs of VOC per gallon of coating for solid wood
exterior siding of cedar, hemlock, mahogany and redwood species at a
stationary source whose actual emissions from all coating operations
are less than 50 tons of VOCs per 12-month rolling period, or an
emission limit of 2.1 lbs of VOC per gallon of coating for all other
flat wood paneling operations. The rule also requires record keeping
and work practices for handling VOC-containing coatings, thinners,
cleaning materials, and coatings-related waste materials. The revised
rule reduces VOC emissions by lowering the maximum VOC content of most
coatings, compared to Vermont's previously-approved APCR 5-253.12 and
source specific requirements for applicable facilities. Therefore, the
revised rule is expected to achieve equivalent or greater emissions
reductions. Thus, revising the SIP to incorporate the revised rule will
not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and
reasonable further progress or any other applicable requirement of the
Act. See CAA Sec.  110(l).
    Vermont APCR 5-253.12 Coating of Flat Wood Paneling contains a
transcription error whereby the metric equivalent of 2.9 lbs/gal is
incorrectly stated as 325 grams/liter, when in fact the metric
equivalent is 350 grams/liter. VT DEC confirmed in a letter to EPA
dated June 28, 2019, that it is DEC's intention to limit solid wood
exterior siding coatings, at facilities that emit less than 50 tons per
year of VOCs, to 2.9 pounds/gallon and the metric equivalent 350 grams/
liter. The discussion on page 3 of the ``Vermont RACT SIP--
Responsiveness Summary'' further explains Vermont's intention for this
category limit to be ``350 grams/liter (2.9 lbs/gal).'' Vermont set
this exterior wood siding coating limit slightly higher than the EPA
CTG recommendation of 2.1 lbs/gal based on: The limited number of
impacted facilities (two); the relatively small size of the impacted
operations (less than 50 tons per year of VOC coating emissions); this
particular solid wood coating only constitutes a portion of the total
VOC emissions at the impacted facilities; and the higher VOC content
coating applied to solid wood is expected to last longer and, thus,
reduce the need for additional coating applications. EPA agrees and
proposes that for Vermont, the enforced limit of 350 grams/liter (2.9
lbs/gal) VOC content for solid wood exterior siding coatings at
facilities where total VOC emissions from all coating lines is under 50
tons per year constitutes RACT.
    Vermont's APCR 5-253.13 Coating of Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic
Parts was previously approved by EPA on April 22, 1998 (63 FR 19829).
The revised rule contains updated work practices, coating application
methods, and recordkeeping requirements for all applicable facilities.
While the rule lists multiple types of coating applications

methods, other coating application methods capable of achieving a
transfer efficiency equivalent to, or better than, that provided by
high-volume low-pressure (HVLP) spray application may also be used.
Additional control options permit equivalent emissions limits expressed
in terms of mass of VOC per volume of solids as applied or the use of
add-on controls capable of achieving an overall VOC efficiency of 90
percent. The new coating limits generally follow the recommendations in
EPA's CTG for Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts Coating (EPA-453/R-
08-003, September 2008), with three exceptions: Extreme high gloss
topcoat, other substrate antifoulant coating, and antifouling sealer/
tie. For these three categories, Vermont reviewed industry data and
determined that for purposes of functionality, cost, and VOC emissions,
the higher limits adopted for these three coating categories constitute
RACT. Vermont's approach is consistent with the EPA guidance memorandum
entitled ``Control Technique Guidelines for Miscellaneous Metal and
Plastic Part Coatings--Industry Request for Reconsideration'' from
Stephen Page to Air Branch Chiefs, Regions I-X, dated June 1, 2010.
Vermont's new VOC coating limits are also lower than most of the
previously SIP-approved limits. Although some specialty coatings limits
are higher than previous limits, since the general use coating limit is
lower and these coatings are more frequently used, coupled with the
fact that the revised rule's applicability is broader, the revised rule
reduces VOC emissions and will not interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or
any other applicable requirement of the Act. See CAA Sec.  110(l). This
analysis is also consistent with the March 17, 2011, EPA guidance
memorandum entitled ``Approving SIP Revisions Addressing VOC RACT
Requirements for Certain Coating Categories.''
    The addition of Vermont's APCR 5-253.17 Industrial Solvent Cleaning
to the Vermont SIP will add to Vermont's solvent cleaning requirements,
which are currently in the Vermont SIP under APCR 5-253.14 Solvent
Metal Cleaning, which was last approved by EPA on April 22, 1998 (63 FR
19825). The added rule applies to industries that use organic solvent
for cleaning unit operations such as mixing vessels (tanks), spray
booths, and parts cleaners, who purchase for use at the premises at
least 855 gallons of cleaning solvents, in aggregate, per rolling 12-
month period. EPA proposes the purchase-for-use threshold of 855
gallons per rolling 12-month period is commensurate with the EPA
recommended CTG applicability of 15 pounds per day of actual VOC
emissions based on a solvent density of 7.36 pounds per gallon and up
to 55 gallons of solvent used for exempt uses. The cleaning activities
include actions such as wiping, flushing, and spraying. Vermont's
Industrial Cleaning Solvents rule is consistent with the
recommendations for RACT found in EPA's CTG for Industrial Cleaning
Solvents (EPA-453/R-06-001, September 2006). Applicable sources are
required to limit VOC emissions by using cleaning solvents that contain
no more than 50 g VOC/l or have a composite vapor pressure of 8.0
millimeters of mercury (mm Hg) at 20 degrees Celsius or by using add-on
controls capable of achieving an overall VOC reduction efficiency of
85%. The work practices in the rule minimize VOC emissions during the
use, handling, storage, and disposal of cleaning solvents. The added
rule reduces VOC emissions by lowering the VOC content of most solvent,
or by applying add-on controls, and thus satisfies the anti-back
sliding requirements in Section 110(l) of the CAA.
    Vermont has determined that there are no applicable stationary
sources of VOC in Vermont for 29 CTG categories: (1) Aerospace; (2)
Auto and Light-Duty Truck Assembly Coatings (2008); (3) Equipment Leaks
from Natural Gas/Gasoline Processing Plants; (4) Fiberglass Boat
Manufacturing Materials (2008); (5) Flexible Packaging Printing
Materials (2006); (6) Fugitive Emissions from Synthetic Organic
Chemical Polymer and Resin Manufacturing; Equipment; (7) Graphic Arts--
Rotogravure and Flexography; (8) Large Appliance Coatings (2007); (9)
Large Petroleum Dry Cleaners; (10) Leaks from Petroleum Refinery
Equipment; (11) Manufacture of High-Density Polyethylene,
Polypropylene, and Polystyrene Resins; (12) Manufacture of Pneumatic
Rubber Tires; (13) Manufacture of Synthesized Pharmaceutical Products;
(14) Metal Furniture Coatings (2007); (15) Oil and Natural Gas Industry
(2016); (16) Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings (2007); (17) Petroleum
Liquid Storage in External Floating Roof Tanks; (18) Refinery Vacuum
Producing Systems, Wastewater Separators, and Process Unit Turnarounds;
(19) SOCMI Air Oxidation Processes; (20) SOCMI Distillation and Reactor
Processes; (21) Shipbuilding/repair; (22) Surface Coating for
Insulation of Magnet Wire; (23) Surface Coating of Automobiles and
Light-Duty Trucks; (24) Surface Coating of Cans; (25) Surface Coating
of Coils; (26) Surface Coating of Fabrics; (27) Surface Coating of
Large Appliances; (28) Surface Coating of Metal Furniture; and (29)
Surface Coating of Paper. These negative declarations mean that Vermont
has no applicable stationary sources of VOC that are covered by these
CTGs.
    EPA has evaluated Vermont's CTG VOC regulations, which the state
certifies as meeting RACT for the 2008 and 2015 ozone standards, and
finds that they are sufficiently consistent with recommendations in the
respective EPA CTGs and are based on currently available
technologically and economically feasible controls. Therefore, EPA
proposes that the regulations being added and revised in this action,
along with the past approved VOC CTG regulations, represent RACT in
Vermont for the 2008 and 2015 ozone standard.

IV. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve Vermont's SIP revision as meeting the
State's RACT obligations for the 2008 and 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQSs as
set forth by sections 182(b) and 184(b)(2) of the CAA, and to add
``State Implementation Plan Revision Supporting Compliance with
Requirements for Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) Under
the 2008 and 2015 8-Hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards,
Final Submittal, September 6, 2018'' to the Vermont SIP. EPA is
proposing to approve the addition of Vermont APCR 5-253.8 Industrial
Adhesives, 5-253.9 Offset Lithographic and Letterpress Printing, and 5-
253.17 Industrial Solvent Cleaning in to the Vermont SIP. EPA is
proposing to revise APCR 5-253.12 Coating of Flat Wood Paneling and 5-
253.13 Coating of Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts currently in
the Vermont SIP. EPA is also proposing to revise the single-source
requirements for ``Isovolta Inc. (Formerly U.S. Samica, Inc.) Operating
Permit RACT provisions,'' ``Killington/Pico Ski Resort Partners, LLC.
Operating Permit RACT provisions,'' and ``Okemo Limited Liability
Company Operating Permit RACT provisions'' currently in the Vermont
SIP. EPA is proposing to withdraw the single-source requirements for
``Churchill Coatings Corporation Operating Permit RACT conditions'' and
``H.B.H Prestain, Inc. Operating Permit RACT provisions'' from the
Vermont SIP. Lastly, EPA is proposing to convert our July 2011
conditional approval of RACT with

respect to the 1997 ozone standard to a full approval because the
proposed addition of APCR 5-253.12 Coating of Flat Wood Paneling will
constitute RACT in lieu of the previous source-specific RACT conditions
for Churchill Coatings Corporation and H.B.H. Prestain, Inc. EPA is
soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this notice or on
other relevant matters. These comments will be considered before taking
final action. Interested parties may participate in the Federal
rulemaking procedure by submitting written comments to this proposed
rule by following the instructions listed in the ADDRESSES section of
this Federal Register.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, EPA is proposing to amend regulatory text that
includes incorporation by reference. As described in the proposed
action above, EPA is proposing to add and revise provisions of the
Vermont APCR at 40 CFR 52.2370(c), ``EPA approved regulations'' in the
Vermont State Implementation Plan, which is incorporated by reference
in accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR part 51. Also in this
document, as described in the proposed action above, EPA is proposing
to revise and remove provisions of the EPA-approved Vermont source
specific requirements at 40 CFR 52.2370(d), ``EPA-approved State Source
specific requirements'' in the Vermont State Implementation Plan, which
is incorporated by reference in accordance with the requirements of 1
CFR part 51. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these
documents generally available through https://www.regulations.gov and
at the EPA Region 1 Office (please contact the person identified in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more
information).

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    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 proposed 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 proposed action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     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 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, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and 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, Nitrogen dioxide, ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: July 23, 2019.
Deborah A. Szaro,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
[FR Doc. 2019-16204 Filed 8-1-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: November 14, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 221)]
[Notices]
[Page 67509]
[DOCID:fr14no08-79]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[AMS-FRL-8740-9]

California State Nonroad Engine Pollution Control Standards;
California Nonroad Compression Ignition Engines--In-Use Fleets;
Authorization Request; Extension of Comment Period

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice; Extension of Comment Period.

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

SUMMARY: EPA previously announced the opportunity for public hearing
and written comment on the California Air Resources Board's request for
an authorization of its regulations for fleets that operate nonroad,
diesel fueled equipment with engines 25 horsepower (hp) and greater and
that require such fleets to meet fleet average emissions standards for
oxides of nitrogen and particulate matter, or, alternatively, to comply
with best available control technology requirements for the vehicles in
those fleets. This previous announcement occurred on October 7, 2008,
at 72 FR 58385. By this notice EPA is announcing an extension of the
written comment period from November 28, 2008 to December 19, 2008.

DATES: The written comment period is extended to December 19, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2008-0691, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Air and Radiation Docket, Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2008-0691, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 6102T, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total
of two copies.
     Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, Public Reading Room, EPA
West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC
20460. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal
hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2008-0691. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/
epahome/dockets.htm.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Dickinson, Compliance and
Innovative Strategies Division (6405J), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW., Washington, DC 20460. Telephone:
(202) 343-9256, Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: November 7, 2008.
Robert J. Meyers,
Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation.
 [FR Doc. E8-27103 Filed 11-13-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 158 (Tuesday, August 16, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54626-54628]
[FR Doc No: 2016-19433]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

 [Release No. 34-78529; File No. SR-FICC-2016-004]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Fixed Income Clearing Corporation;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
To Add a Clearing Fund Maintenance Fee

August 10, 2016.
    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 July 29, 2016, Fixed Income Clearing Corporation (``FICC'') 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 clearing agency. FICC filed the
proposed rule change pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and
Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder.\4\ The proposed rule change was effective
upon filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

I. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the
Proposed Rule Change

    The proposed rule change consists of modifications to the rules of
the Government Securities Division (``GSD Rules'') of FICC and the
rules of the Mortgage-Backed Securities Division (``MBSD Rules'') of
FICC in order to add a new fee that will be charged to GSD Netting
Members and MBSD Clearing Members in connection with the maintenance of
the Clearing Fund, as described in greater detail below.\5\ GSD Netting
Members and MBSD Clearing Members are collectively referred to herein
as ``members.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Capitalized terms not defined herein are defined in the GSD
Rules, available at www.dtcc.com/~/media/Files/Downloads/legal/
rules/ficc_gov_rules.pdf, and the MBSD Rules, available at
www.dtcc.com/~/media/Files/Downloads/legal/rules/
ficc_mbsd_rules.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the clearing agency 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 clearing agency has prepared summaries,
set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant
aspects of such statements.

(A) Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    The proposed rule change will add a fee that will be charged to
members in connection with the maintenance of the Clearing Fund.
Clearing Fund Maintenance Fee
    Pursuant to the proposed rule change, FICC proposes to introduce a
new fee, to be known as the Clearing Fund Maintenance Fee, which will
be charged to members in arrears on a monthly basis.
    The proposed rule change will (i) diversify FICC's revenue sources
and mitigate FICC's dependence on revenues driven by trading volumes
and (ii) add a stable revenue source that will contribute to FICC's
operating margin by offsetting increasing costs and expenses, as
further described below.
Diversify Revenue Sources
    FICC's current revenues are highly variable due to the nature of
the clearing services, which are primarily driven by trading volumes,
but, as a utility, FICC's expenses are largely fixed. The combination
of fixed costs and variable revenues represents a financial risk for
FICC. To mitigate such financial risk, FICC is seeking to diversify its
variable revenue base with the proposed new fee, which will introduce a
revenue source that is not dependent on trading volumes. The Clearing
Fund Maintenance Fee will be ratably based on the member's Clearing
Fund average cash deposit.
Offset Increasing Costs and Expenses
    FICC seeks to achieve a target operating margin to cover operating
expenses and fund capital expenditures as well as investments in its
clearing services and risk management infrastructure; however, FICC
faces

continued increasing risk management costs as well as regulatory and
compliance-related expenses that need to be offset by revenue growth in
order to meet the target operating margin. Such increased costs and
expenses, if not offset by revenue growth, could weaken FICC's
financial position over time. As such, FICC is seeking to implement the
Clearing Fund Maintenance Fee to add an additional revenue source to
offset increasing costs and expenses.
    Proceeds of the Clearing Fund Maintenance Fee will be used
primarily to offset risk management costs, regulatory and compliance
expenses and for general operating expenses.
Calculation
    The amount of the monthly Clearing Fund Maintenance Fee for a
member will be calculated monthly, in arrears, as the product of 0.25%
and the average of the member's actual cash deposit to the Clearing
Fund as of the end of each day of the month, multiplied by the number
of days in that month and divided by 360; provided that, the investment
rate of return on investment by FICC of cash in the Clearing Fund for
that month is equal to or greater than 0.25%. No fee will be charged to
any member for a month in which the monthly rate of return on
investment of cash in the Clearing Fund is less than 0.25%.
    Based on the 2015 average actual cash deposits to the Clearing
Fund, the expected annual revenue to be generated by the Clearing Fund
Maintenance Fee is approximately $24 million.
Member Impact
    The proposed rule change will impose the Clearing Fund Maintenance
Fee on all members that are required to make deposits to the Clearing
Fund.
    The Clearing Fund Maintenance Fee is a monthly fee based ratably
upon the amount of the member's daily actual cash deposited to the
Clearing Fund; it is applicable when the monthly rate of return on
investment of cash in the Clearing Fund is equal to or greater than
0.25%.
    Because the Clearing Fund Maintenance Fee per member is
proportional to the average monthly cash deposit of the member to the
Clearing Fund, members that generate higher levels of activity and make
greater use of FICC's services will generally be subject to a higher
fee, because such members typically maintain higher Clearing Fund
deposits pursuant to the GSD Rules and the MBSD Rules.
    FICC views the proposed implementation of the Clearing Fund
Maintenance Fee as a prudent way to minimize the magnitude of, and
mitigate the need for, potential future increases in other fees.
    The proposed change will take effect on August 1, 2016.
2. Statutory Basis
    Section 17A(b)(3)(D) of the Act \6\ requires that the GSD Rules and
MBSD Rules provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees, and other charges among its participants. The proposed fee is
equitably allocated among members because it is based on each member's
utilization of FICC's services, as measured by their Clearing Fund
deposits. In addition, FICC believes that the proposed fee is
reasonable because it will enable FICC to better align its revenue with
the costs and expenses required for FICC to provide services to its
members with a nominal impact on members. Therefore, FICC believes the
proposed rule change is consistent with section 17A(b)(3)(D).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(D).
    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Clearing Agency's Statement on Burden on Competition

    FICC does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose a
burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, because the proposed fee will
be equitably allocated among members based on each member's utilization
of FICC's services. Members that have a higher level of activities and
greater use of FICC's services will generally be subject to a higher
Clearing Fund Maintenance Fee and members with lower usage will pay
less.

(C) Clearing Agency's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change
Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    FICC has not received or solicited any written comments relating to
this proposal. FICC will notify the Commission of any written comments
received by FICC.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to section
19(b)(3)(A) \8\ of the Act and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \9\
thereunder. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-FICC-2016-004 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FICC-2016-004. 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 Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of FICC and on
DTCC's Web site (http://dtcc.com/legal/sec-rule-filings.aspx). All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make

available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-
FICC-2016-004 and should be submitted on or before September 6, 2016.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-19433 Filed 8-15-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 28 (Monday, February 11, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9702-9703]
[FR Doc No: 2013-03019]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2013-D-0092]

Draft Guidance for Industry on Immunogenicity Assessment for
Therapeutic Protein Products; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled ``Immunogenicity
Assessment for Therapeutic Protein Products.'' Therapeutic protein
products may elicit immune responses, and these responses may lead to
serious or life-threatening adverse events for the patient or loss of
efficacy of the product. This draft guidance is intended to assist
manufacturers to develop a risk-based approach in both the preclinical
and clinical phases of the development of therapeutic protein products
to evaluate and mitigate immune responses that may adversely affect
their safety and efficacy.

DATES: Although you can comment on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)), to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this
draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the
guidance, submit either electronic or written comments on the draft
guidance by April 12, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for single copies of the draft
guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New
Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, rm. 2201, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, or
Office of Communication, Outreach and Development (HFM-40), Center for
Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), Food and Drug Administration,
1401 Rockville Pike, suite 200N, Rockville, MD 20852-1448. Send one
self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your
requests. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic
access to the draft guidance document.
    Submit electronic comments on the draft guidance to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets
Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane,
rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Rosenberg, Center for Drug
Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 8800 Rockville
Pike, Bldg. 29A, rm. 2D-16, Bethesda, MD 20892,<PHONE_NUMBER>; or
Stephen Ripley, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (HFM-17),
Food and Drug Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, suite 200N,
Rockville, MD 20852-1448,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry
entitled ``Immunogenicity Assessment for Therapeutic Protein
Products.'' The purpose of this document is to assist manufacturers and
clinical investigators involved in the development of therapeutic
protein products for human use. The guidance outlines, and recommends
adoption of, a risk-based approach to evaluating and mitigating the
potential for immunogenicity that may affect the safety and efficacy of
therapeutic protein products. The guidance describes various product-
and patient-specific factors that can affect the immunogenicity of
protein therapeutics and provides recommendations pertaining to each of
these factors that may reduce the likelihood that these products will
generate an immune response. In addition, the guidance offers a series
of recommendations for risk mitigation in the clinical phase of
development of protein therapeutics. The draft guidance also provides
supplemental information on the diagnosis and management of particular
adverse consequences of immune responses to protein therapeutics and
contains brief discussions of the uses of animal studies and the
conduct of comparative immunogenicity studies.
    This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good
guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when
finalized, will represent the Agency's current thinking on
immunogenicity assessment of therapeutic protein products. It does not

create or confer any rights for or on any person and does not operate
to bind FDA or the public. An alternative approach may be used if such
approach satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and
regulations.

II. Comments

    Interested persons may submit either electronic comments regarding
this document to http://www.regulations.gov or written comments to the
Division of Dockets Management (see ADDRESSES). It is only necessary to
send one set of comments. Identify comments with the docket number
found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received comments
may be seen in the Division of Dockets Management between 9 a.m. and 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, and will be posted to the docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

III. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the document at
http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm, http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/default.htm, or http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: February 5, 2013.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2013-03019 Filed 2-8-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register: May 8, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 88)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 21550-21554]
[DOCID:fr08my09-6]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2009-0043; FRL-8901-8]

Finding of Failure To Submit State Implementation Plans Required
for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard; North
Carolina and South Carolina

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking a final action finding that North Carolina and
South Carolina have failed to submit state implementation plan (SIP)
revisions to satisfy certain requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA)
for the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS). The submissions at issue were due because the Charlotte bi-
state area (Charlotte Area), which includes areas in both North and
South Carolina, is a moderate nonattainment area for the 1997 8-hour
ozone standard. Under the CAA and EPA's implementing regulations,
states with nonattainment areas classified as moderate, serious, severe
or extreme were required to submit by June 15, 2007, SIPs:
demonstrating how each nonattainment area would attain the 1997 8-hour
ozone standard as expeditiously as practicable but no later than the
applicable dates established in the implementing regulations and
demonstrating reasonable further progress (RFP). Additionally, states
were required by September 15, 2006, to submit for these same areas,
SIPs demonstrating that sources specified under the CAA were subject to
reasonably available control technology requirements (RACT). North
Carolina and South Carolina made these required submissions but later
withdrew the attainment demonstration submissions for the Charlotte
Area. As a result, EPA is making a finding of failure to submit for
both North Carolina and South Carolina of the attainment demonstrations
for the Charlotte Area.

DATES: Effective Date: This action is effective on May 8, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: General questions concerning this
notice should be addressed to Mr. Richard A. Schutt, U.S. EPA Region 4;
e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Statutory Requirements
III. Consequences of Findings of Failure To Submit
IV. Final Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    The CAA requires states with areas that are designated
nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS to develop a SIP
providing how such areas will attain and maintain the NAAQS. Part D of
title I of the CAA specifies the required elements of a SIP for an area
designated nonattainment. These requirements include, but are not
limited to, RFP, RACT, and an attainment demonstration. See CAA
sections 172 and 182. On March 24, 2008, EPA published a final rule in
the Federal Register announcing that EPA had found that 11 states
failed to make required SIP submissions for 11 nonattainment areas and
3 states or portions of states in the Ozone Transport Region. 73 FR
15416. At that time, EPA was in receipt of the required submissions
from North Carolina and South Carolina for RFP, RACT and an attainment
demonstration. However, both North Carolina and South Carolina have
since withdrawn their attainment demonstration submittals, thus
resulting in their failure to submit a required SIP.
    EPA received the required submittals from North Carolina on June
15, 2007, and South Carolina on August 31, 2007. EPA reviewed the
submittals, as well as air quality data from the ozone season in 2007
and, more recently, preliminary

data from the ozone season in 2008. After undertaking this review, EPA
sent North Carolina and South Carolina letters on November 17, 2008,
explaining its intention to propose disapproval of the attainment
demonstrations for the Charlotte Area for the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard by January 9, 2009, unless the States requested voluntary
reclassification from moderate to serious. EPA's letter was prompted by
air quality data for the area which indicates that the area will be
unable to meet the latest moderate area attainment date of June 2010,
which was the attainment date relied on in the submitted attainment
demonstrations. On December 19, 2008, and December 22, 2008, the states
of North Carolina and South Carolina, respectively, submitted letters
to EPA withdrawing their attainment demonstrations for the Charlotte
area. As such, EPA no longer has pending before it the required
attainment demonstrations for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard for either
the North Carolina or South Carolina portion of the Charlotte Area.
Therefore, EPA is now making a finding of failure to submit for North
Carolina and South Carolina for these required SIPs. Specifically, this
finding is for the attainment demonstration requirement found in
sections 172, 182(b), of the CAA, and 40 CFR 51.112 and 40 CFR 51.908
(c) and (d), of EPA's implementing regulations.
    On January 9, 2009, letters were sent to North Carolina and South
Carolina informing them that as a result of the withdrawal of their
attainment demonstrations, EPA would be moving forward with a finding
of failure to submit the attainment demonstration SIP elements. On
January 9, 2009, EPA also sent the Catawba Indian Nation a letter
informing them of this pending EPA action. The Catawba Indian Nation
has land that is included in York County, South Carolina, which is
included as part of the Charlotte Area.\1\ These letters, and any
accompanying enclosures, have been included in the docket to this
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Catawba Indian Nation does not have jurisdiction over
CAA implementation. See, e.g., 69 FR 23858, 23862 (April 30, 2004)
(EPA 8-hour ozone classifications explaining Tribal involvement).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Statutory Requirements

    On July 18, 1997, EPA issued a revised ozone standard. At that
time, the ozone standard was 0.12 parts per million (ppm) measured over
a 1-hour period. EPA revised the NAAQS to rely on an 8-hour averaging
period (versus 1 hour for the previous NAAQS), and the level of the
standard was changed from 0.12 ppm to 0.08 ppm (62 FR 38856). EPA's
initial implementation strategy for the 1997 8-hour standard was
vacated and remanded by the Supreme Court. Whitman v. American Trucking
Associations, Inc., 531 U.S. 457 (2001). On April 30, 2004 (69 FR
23951) and on November 29, 2005 (70 FR 71612), EPA published final
rules that addressed the elements related to implementation of the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS (Phase 1 and Phase 2 Implementation Rules). In an
April 30, 2004, rulemaking (69 FR 23858), EPA designated attainment and
nonattainment areas for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, and specified
the classification for each nonattainment area. The 1997 8-hour ozone
designations took effect on June 15, 2004. The November 30, 2005, Phase
2 implementation rule set forth deadlines for state and local
governments to develop and submit to EPA implementation plans designed
to meet the 1997 8-hour standard by reducing air pollutant emissions
contributing to ground-level ozone concentrations. The Phase 2 Rule
required states with nonattainment areas to submit SIPs by June 15,
2007, demonstrating how each nonattainment area would attain the 1997
8-hour ozone standard as expeditiously as practicable, but no later
than specified dates and demonstrating how the area would make
reasonable further progress toward attainment in the years prior to the
attainment year. Additionally, the Phase 2 Rule required states to
submit SIPs requiring RACT for nonattainment areas and for areas within
the OTR by September 15, 2006.

III. Consequences of Findings of Failure To Submit

    The CAA establishes specific consequences if EPA finds that a state
has failed to submit a SIP or, with regard to a submitted SIP, EPA
determines it is incomplete or disapproves it. CAA section 179(a)(1).
Additionally, any of these findings also triggers an obligation for EPA
to promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) if the states have
not submitted, and EPA has not approved the required SIP within 2 years
of the finding. CAA section 110(c). The first finding, that a state has
failed to submit a plan or one or more elements of a plan required
under the CAA, is the finding relevant to this action.
    EPA is finding that North Carolina and South Carolina have failed
to make required attainment demonstration SIP submissions for the
Charlotte Area. If EPA has not affirmatively determined that North
Carolina and South Carolina have made the required complete submittals
for the area within 18 months of the effective date of this action,
pursuant to CAA section 179(a) and (b) and 40 CFR 52.31, the offset
sanction identified in CAA section 179(b)(2) will apply in the area
subject to the finding.\2\ The highway funding sanction will apply six
months after the offset sanctions applies if EPA has not determined
that the states submitted complete attainment demonstration submittals
within that time. The sanctions clock will stop and the sanctions will
not take effect if, within the required timeframe after the date of the
finding, EPA finds that the States have made complete attainment
demonstration submittals. In addition, we note that if the area is
reclassified to serious or above for the 1997 8-hour standard, the area
will then have a new attainment demonstration requirement for its new
classification and such reclassification would stop the sanction clock
triggered for the moderate area attainment demonstration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ If EPA has not affirmatively determined that the state has
made a complete submission within 6 months after the offset sanction
is imposed, then the highway funding sanction will apply in areas
designated nonattainment, in accordance with CAA section 179(b)(1)
and 40 CFR 52.31. If the highway funding sanction is implemented,
the conformity status of the transportation plans and transportation
improvement programs will lapse on the date of implementation of the
highway sanctions. During a conformity lapse, only projects that are
exempt from transportation conformity, transportation control
measures that are in the approved SIP, and project phases that were
approved prior to the start of the lapse can proceed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, this finding triggers EPA's FIP obligation. However,
EPA is not required to promulgate a FIP if the States make the required
SIP submittals and EPA takes final action to approve the submittals
within 2 years of EPA's finding. Additionally, if the area is
reclassified for the 1997 ozone standard, EPA would be relieved of the
FIP obligation.

IV. Final Action

    In this action, EPA is making a finding that North Carolina and
South Carolina have failed to submit the required moderate-area
attainment demonstration SIP submittals for the Charlotte Area for the
1997 8-hour ozone standard. This finding starts the sanctions clock and
a 24-month clock for the promulgation of a FIP by EPA. This action will
be effective on May 8, 2009.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Notice and Comment Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)

    This is a final EPA action, but is not subject to notice-and-
comment requirements of the APA, 5 U.S.C. 553(b). EPA believes that
because of the limited time provided to make findings of failure to
submit regarding SIP submissions, Congress did not intend such findings
to be subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking. However, to the extent
such findings are subject to notice-and-comment rulemaking, EPA invokes
the good cause exception pursuant to the APA, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B).
Notice and comment are unnecessary because no EPA judgment is involved
in making a nonsubstantive finding of failure to submit elements of SIP
submissions required by the CAA. Furthermore, providing notice and
comment would be impracticable because of the limited time provided
under the statute for making such determinations. Finally, notice and
comment would be contrary to the public interest because it would
divert agency resources from the critical substantive review of
complete SIPs. See 58 FR 51270, 51272, n.17 (October 1, 1993); 59 FR
39832, 39853 (August 4, 1994).

B. Effective Date Under the APA

    This action will be effective on May 8, 2009. Under the APA, 5
U.S.C. 553(d)(3), agency rulemaking may take effect before 30 days
after the date of publication in the Federal Register if the agency has
good cause to specify an earlier effective date. This action concerns
SIP submissions that are already overdue; and EPA previously cautioned
the affected states that the SIP submissions were overdue and that EPA
was considering taking this action. In addition, this action simply
starts a ``clock'' that will not result in sanctions against the states
for 18 months, and that the states may ``turn off'' through the
submission of complete SIP submittals. These reasons support an
effective date prior to 30 days after the date of publication.

C. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is
therefore not subject to review under the Executive Order. The Order
defines ``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to
result in a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or state, local, or Tribal governments or
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
    Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been
determined that this rule is not a ``significant regulatory action''
because none of the above factors apply. As such, this final rule was
not submitted to OMB for review.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
This rule relates to the requirement in the CAA for states to submit
SIPs under section Part D of title I of the CAA to satisfy elements
required for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The present final rule does
not establish any new information collection requirement. Burden means
that total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to
generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or
for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review
instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and
systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying
information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and
providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any
previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to
be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources;
complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or
otherwise disclose the information. An Agency may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of
information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations in the CFR are listed in
40 CFR part 9.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    This final rule is not subject to the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA), which generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis for any rule that will have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA applies only
to rules subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under
the APA or any other statute. This rule is not subject to notice and
comment requirements under the APA or any other statute because
although the rule is subject to the APA, the Agency has invoked the
``good cause'' exemption under 5 U.S.C. 553(b), therefore it is not
subject to the notice and comment requirement.

F. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal Agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on state, local and Tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandate'' that
may result in expenditures to state, local, and Tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation of why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including Tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments to have
meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory
proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and
informing, educating, and advising small government on compliance with
regulatory requirements. This action

does not include a Federal mandate within the meaning of UMRA that may
result in expenditures of $100 million or more in any 1 year by either
state, local, or Tribal governments in the aggregate or to the private
sector, and therefore, is not subject to the requirements of sections
202 and 205 of the UMRA. It does not create any additional requirements
beyond those of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (62 FR 38652; 62 FR 38856,
July 18, 1997), therefore, no UMRA analysis is needed. EPA has
determined that this action is not a Federal mandate. The CAA
provisions require states to submit SIPs. This notice merely provides a
finding that the States at issue have not met the requirement to submit
certain SIPs and begins a clock that could result in the imposition of
sanctions if the states continue to not meet this statutory obligation.
This notice does not, by itself, require any particular action by any
state, local, or Tribal government; or by the private sector. For the
same reasons, EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. The EPA believes that any new controls imposed as a result
of this action will not cost in the aggregate $100 million or more
annually. Thus, this Federal action will not impose mandates that will
require expenditures of $100 million or more in the aggregate in any 1
year.

G. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by state and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the states, or the relationship between the national
government and the states, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' This final
rule does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. The CAA establishes the scheme
whereby states take the lead in developing plans to meet the NAAQS and
the Federal Government acts as a backstop where states fail to take the
required actions. This rule will not modify the relationship of the
states and EPA for purposes of developing programs to implement the
NAAQS. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.

H. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
With Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by Tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have Tribal implications.'' EPA has concluded that this
final rule will not have Tribal implications. It will neither impose
substantial direct compliance costs on Tribal governments, nor preempt
Tribal law. This rule responds to the requirement in the CAA for states
to submit SIPs to satisfy the nonattainment area requirements of the
CAA for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The CAA requires states with areas
that are designated nonattainment for the NAAQS to develop a SIP
describing how the state will attain and maintain the NAAQS. There are
Tribal governments within certain nonattainment areas for which this
rule turns on a sanctions clock. However, this rule does not have
Tribal implications because it does not impose any compliance costs on
Tribal governments nor does it preempt Tribal law. The rule will not
have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes, on the
relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian Tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

I. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies
to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant''
as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action
meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health
or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency. This final
rule is not subject to the Executive Order because it is not
economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because the Agency does not have reason to believe the environmental
health or safety risks addressed by this action present a
disproportionate risk to children. This action should reduce the levels
of harmful pollutants in the air that should reduce harmful effects on
children.

J. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001)) because it is not likely to have a significant adverse
effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. In this action,
EPA is finding that several states have failed to submit SIPs to
satisfy certain nonattainment area requirements of the CAA for the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS.

K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (February 16, 1994)) establishes
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States. EPA has determined that this final
rule will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it
does not directly affect the level of protection provided to human
health or the environment. This notice finds that certain states have
not met the requirement to submit one or more SIPs and begins a clock
that could result in the imposition of sanctions if the states continue
to not meet this statutory obligation. If the states fail to submit the
required SIPs or if they submit SIPs that EPA cannot approve, then EPA
will be required to develop the plans in lieu of the states.

L. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104-113, (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA
to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its regulatory activities
unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impracticable. VCS are technical standards (e.g., materials
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business
practices) that are developed or adopted by VCS bodies. The NTTAA
directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the
Agency decides not to use available and applicable VCS. This action
does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA did not consider
the use of any VCS.

M. Congressional Review Act

    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 rule 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). This rule will be effective May 8, 2009.

N. Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit Court within 60 days from the date
final action is published in the Federal Register. Filing a petition
for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not
affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review
nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review
must be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. Thus, any petitions for review of this action making findings
of failure to submit attainment demonstration SIPs for the Charlotte
Area, must be filed in the Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit within 60 days from the date final action is published
in the Federal Register.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: April 29, 2009.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. E9-10683 Filed 5-7-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 99 (Tuesday, May 22, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23759-23760]
[FR Doc No: 2018-10950]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Availability of Categorical Exclusion and Record of
Decision for the Proposed West Flow Area Navigation Standard Instrument
Departure Procedures at Phoenix Sky Harbor International

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, (FAA), Department of
Transportation.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA, Western Service Area is issuing this notice to advise
the public of the availability of the Categorical Exclusion/Record of
Decision (CATEX/ROD) for the Proposed West Flow Area Navigation (RNAV)
Standard Instrument Departure (SID) Procedures at Phoenix Sky Harbor
International Airport in Phoenix, AZ. The FAA reviewed the action and
determined it to be categorically excluded from further environmental
documentation.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marina Landis, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 2200
S 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198-6547 or<PHONE_NUMBER> or https://www.faa.gov/nextgen/nextgen_near_you/community_involvement/phx/.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The FAA is proposing to amend the west flow RNAV SID procedures
from Runways 25 Left, 25 Right and 26 at Phoenix Sky Harbor
International Airport, Phoenix, Arizona. The proposed amendments are
consistent with the resolution of the parties as stipulated in the
Memorandum

Regarding Implementation of the Court Order, jointly negotiated
following the court's August 29, 2017, Order in City of Phoenix,
Arizona v. Huerta, 869 F.3d 963 (D.C. Circuit 2017). In response to the
Court's decision, the FAA and the Petitioners worked together on the
best way to implement the Court's order and agreed on an approach to
address the Petitioners' concerns while ensuring that aircraft
operations remain safe and efficient. The FAA, in consultation with the
City of Phoenix, developed the Proposed Action to comply with the
Court's Order and to meet the requirements set forth in the Memorandum.
The parties agreed to a two-step process for departures for the western
RNAV routes. The first step (Step One) of the process would provide
interim noise relief to the Petitioners by approximating the western
departure routes that were in place before the September 2014 RNAV
procedures. Step Two, which is not part of the current proposal, is
described in the Memorandum.
    Step One was further broken down into Step 1A and Step 1B.The FAA
implemented Step 1A on March 29, 2018, to provide more immediate noise
relief to the Petitioners. Step 1B is the subject of the current action
and would involve replacing the departure routes in Step 1A and
implementing nine new RNAV SID procedures. Step 1B is an independent
proposed action consistent with Section 5 of the Memorandum and would
complete Step One.
    Right of Appeal: This CATEX/ROD constitutes a final order of the
FAA Administrator and is subject to exclusive judicial review under 49
U.S.C. 46110 by the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia or the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the circuit in which
the person contesting the decision resides or has its principal place
of business. Any party having substantial interest in this order may
apply for review of the decision by filing a petition for review in the
appropriate U.S. Court of Appeals no later than 60 days after the order
is issued in accordance with the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 46110.

    Issued in Des Moines, WA, on May 16, 2018.
B.G. Chew,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, Air
Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2018-10950 Filed 5-21-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P