[Federal Register: May 6, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 87)]
[Notices]
[Page 25020-25022]
[DOCID:fr06my10-112]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-61997; File No. SR-FINRA-2010-017]

 Self-Regulatory Organizations; Financial Industry Regulatory
Authority, Inc.; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of
Proposed Rule Change To Allow FINRA Members To Use the OTC Reporting
Facility To Transfer Transaction Fees Charged by One Member to Another
Member

April 28, 2010.
    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 April 12, 2010, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC''
or ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by FINRA. FINRA has designated
the proposed rule change as constituting a ``non-controversial'' rule
change under Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposal effective upon receipt of
this filing by the Commission. Additionally, FINRA has designated the
proposed rule change as ``establishing or changing a due, fee or other
charge'' under Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \5\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2)
thereunder,\6\ which renders the proposal effective upon receipt of
this filing by 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)(6).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \6\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FINRA is proposing to (1) adopt FINRA Rule 7330(i) to permit FINRA
members to use the OTC Reporting Facility (the ``ORF'') to transfer
transaction fees charged by one member to another member on trades
reported to the ORF; and (2) amend FINRA Rule 7710 to establish the fee
to be charged by the ORF for use of the transaction fee transfer
service.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's Web
site at http://www.finra.org, on the Commission's Web site at http://
www.sec.gov, at the principal office of FINRA and at the Commission's
Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, FINRA 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. FINRA 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
    Background:
    Rule 7230A(h) permits FINRA members to agree in advance to transfer
a transaction fee charged by one member to another member on a
transaction in NMS stocks effected otherwise than on an exchange
through the submission of a clearing report to the FINRA/Nasdaq Trade
Reporting Facility (``FINRA/Nasdaq TRF''). Prior to the adoption of
Rule 7230A(h) in 2007,\7\ there was no mechanism for members to charge
each other commissions or other explicit transaction fees through the
FINRA trade reporting and clearance submission process. Generally,
members wanting to charge other members an explicit transaction fee
either billed and collected those fees directly from the other member
outside the transaction reporting and clearing process or traded on a
``net'' basis.\8\ Rule 7230A(h)

provides members with another alternative by permitting the transfer of
a transaction fee as part of a clearing report submitted to the FINRA/
Nasdaq TRF.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 56007 (July 3,
2007), 72 FR 37807 (July 11, 2007) (Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of File No. SR-NASD-2007-046). SR-NASD-2007-046
proposed to adopt paragraph (h) of NASD Rule 6130. Pursuant to SR-
FINRA-2008-021, NASD Rule 6130 was renumbered as FINRA Rule 7230A.
See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58643 (September 25, 2008),
73 FR 57174 (October 1, 2008) (Order Approving File No. SR-FINRA-
2008-021).
    \8\ Trading on a ``net basis'' means that the broker-dealer's
compensation is implicitly included in the execution price
disseminated to the tape and reported for clearance and settlement
to the National Securities Clearing Corporation (``NSCC''). For
example, broker-dealer 1 (B/D 1) purchases a security at $10 and
sells the security to broker-dealer 2 (B/D 2) ``net'' at a price of
$10.001. Because $10.001 is the reported trade price, the
transaction fee is included as part of the trade and is transferred
as part of the clearance and settlement process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Amendments Relating to Transfer of Transaction Fees in
Clearing Reports Submitted to the ORF:
    The proposed rule change would adopt a provision identical to Rule
7230A(h) for purposes of transferring transaction fees between members
as part of a clearing report submitted to the ORF. Specifically,
pursuant to proposed Rule 7330(i), members would be required to provide
in reports submitted to the ORF, in addition to all other information
required to be submitted by any other rule, a total per share or
contract price amount, inclusive of the transaction fee. As a result,
members would submit two price amounts as part of their report to the
ORF: one price including the transaction fee, which would be submitted
by the ORF to NSCC for clearance and settlement; and one price
exclusive of the transaction fee, which would be publicly disseminated.
For example, if B/D 1 purchases from B/D 2 at $10.00 and B/D 1 and B/D
2 agree to a transaction fee of $.001 per share, the trade price that
would be publicly disseminated would be $10.00, while the trade would
be cleared and settled by NSCC at $10.001.\9\ The parties to the trade
would know both prices--the price reported for public dissemination and
the clearance/settlement price.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ If the parties were trading on a net basis with the fee
incorporated in the trade price, the transaction at a price of
$10.001 would be reported to the tape and also submitted to NSCC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 7330(i) provides that both members and their
respective clearing firms, as applicable, must execute an agreement, as
specified by FINRA, permitting the facilitation of the transfer of the
transaction fee through the ORF, as well as any other applicable
agreement, such as a give up agreement.\10\ Such agreement must be
executed and submitted to the ORF before the members can transfer any
transaction fee under the proposed rule. Among other things, the form
of agreement specified by FINRA would expressly provide that the
acceptance and processing by the ORF of the transaction fee as part of
a trade report shall not constitute an estoppel as to FINRA or bind
FINRA in any subsequent administrative, civil or disciplinary
proceeding with respect to the transaction fee transferred. In other
words, processing of a transaction fee by the ORF should not be taken
to mean that FINRA approved that transaction fee or its amount or its
appropriateness under FINRA rules or federal securities laws. The mere
fact that the transaction fee flowed through a FINRA facility will not
be a defense to any action taken by FINRA relating to the fee. The
proposed rule also provides that the relevant agreements are considered
member records for purposes of NASD Rule 3110(a) and must be made and
preserved by both members in conformity with applicable FINRA rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ FINRA also is proposing to adopt paragraph (h) of Rule
6622, which would provide expressly that members may enter into
``give up'' arrangements whereby one member reports to the ORF on
behalf of another member, provided that both members have executed
and submitted to the ORF the appropriate documentation. The proposed
provision is identical to the current rules relating to the FINRA/
Nasdaq Trade Reporting Facility and the FINRA/NYSE Trade Reporting
Facility and codifies current practice and guidance with respect to
reporting to the FINRA Facilities. See Rules 6380A(h) and 6380B(g);
Member Alert: Notice to All TRF, ADF and Other NASD Facility
Participants Regarding AGU and QSR Relationships (January 25, 2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, the proposed rule expressly provides that it shall not
relieve a member from its obligations under FINRA rules and federal
securities laws, including but not limited to, NASD Rule 2230
(Confirmations) and SEA Rule 10b-10. To the extent that any transaction
fee is passed onto the customer, members should review their customer
confirmation obligations to ensure that they are disclosing such fees
in compliance with all applicable rules and regulations, as well as
other FINRA rules, including but not limited to, NASD Rules 2320 (Best
Execution and Interpositioning) and 2440 (Fair Prices and Commissions).
    The proposed rule relates solely to transaction fees charged by one
FINRA member to another FINRA member. Members would not be able to use
the ORF to facilitate the transfer of fees for transactions with a
customer (i.e., clients that are not brokers or dealers) or a non-
member. In addition, the ORF can only be used to facilitate the
transfer of transaction fees. Members would not be able to use the ORF
to transfer access fees or rebates on transactions.
    FINRA also is proposing to amend Rule 7330(d) to require that for
any transaction for which the ORF is used to transfer a transaction fee
between two members, the trade report must comply with the requirements
of proposed Rule 7330(i). Thus, while use of the ORF to transfer
transaction fees between members is voluntary, members that opt to use
this service must comply with the requirements of proposed Rule
7330(i), as well as all other applicable FINRA rules.
    Proposed Fee for Use of Transaction Fee Transfer Service:
    In this filing, FINRA also is proposing to establish the fee to be
charged by the ORF for use by members of the transaction fee transfer
service. Pursuant to Rule 7710, the fee will be $0.03 per side for each
clearing report submitted to the ORF to transfer a transaction fee.
This fee is in addition to any other fee applicable to the transaction.
The amount of this fee is identical to the fee charged by the FINRA/
Nasdaq TRF under Rule 7620A for the same transaction fee transfer
service.
    FINRA has filed the proposed rule change for immediate
effectiveness. The operative date will be June 1, 2010.
2. Statutory Basis
    FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the
provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,\11\ which requires, among
other things, that FINRA rules must be designed to prevent fraudulent
and manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, and, in general, to protect investors and the
public interest. FINRA believes that by automating and improving
transaction fee transfers between members as a value-added service, the
proposed rule change will enhance market transparency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is
consistent with the provisions of Section 15A(b)(5) of the Act,\12\
which requires, among other things, that FINRA rules provide for the
equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among
members and issuers and other persons using any facility or system that
FINRA operates or controls. FINRA believes that the proposed fee for
the service is reasonably allocated among members based on their usage
of the functionality to transfer transaction fees between members and
is generally consistent with other fees charged by the ORF and other
FINRA trade reporting facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78o-3(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in
any burden on competition that is 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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \13\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\14\ Additionally, the foregoing rule change has
become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \15\ and
paragraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and the text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Exchange has satisfied the pre-filing requirement.
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate 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.

II. 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 e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-FINRA-2010-017 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2010-017. 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 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 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal office of the
FINRA. 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-
FINRA-2010-017 and should be submitted on or before May 27, 2010.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-10594 Filed 5-5-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


ATTACHMENT 1 YEAR 2002 AIR DISPERSION MODELING ANALYSIS OF APFO EMISSIONS DuPont Washington Works Facility Parkersburg, West Virginia Prepared by:

DuPont Engineering Technology ( DuET) Environmental Section Wilmington, DE 19898 October 17, 2003 OPPT 2003 0012 0224 RECEIVED OPPT NCIC 2003 October 28 8: 25AM Year 2002 Air Dispersion Modeling Analysis October 17, 2003 Page 2 1. Introduction DuPont conducted air dispersion modeling of APFO  emissions from its Washington Works facility located near Parkersburg, WV. Modeling was conducted to predict long term ambient air concentrations of APFO resulting from actual plant emissions that occurred during calendar year 2002. This report describes the APFO emissions inventory used in the modeling analysis, the meteorological data, the dispersion model and modeling procedures, prediction locations ( receptor grid), and the results of the modeling analysis.

2. Emissions Inventory The following emission inventory information has been assembled in order to conduct the air quality modeling:

1. Stack locations 2. Stack heights 3. Stack diameters 4. Stack gas exit temperatures 5. Stack gas flow rate or exit velocities 6. Detailed plant layout, including all building dimensions 7. Year 2002 estimated actual emissions. These emissions estimates are based upon product information and technical knowledge, including usage factors ( quantity of APFO used per pound of dry product), production records, APFO recovery, and available stack test data.

All of the stack parameters are presented in Table 1, which shows the source representation for modeling purposes. The estimated actual emission rates of APFO, per source, are also presented in Table 1. Figure 1 presents the general locations of the APFO sources.

3. Meteorological Data One year of on site meteorological data for the calendar year 1996 was used in this study. Concurrent twice daily upper air data from the upper air observation station located in Wilmington, OH was used along with on site surface temperatures to obtain hourly mixing depths. Missing data and measured wind speeds of less than 1.0 m/ s were treated consistent with the recommendations made in the EPA's " Meteorological Monitoring Guidance for Regulatory Modeling Applications"( 1). An anemometer height of 10 meters was used for the modeling analysis.

4. Model Selection The area surrounding Washington Works is primarily non urban. The U. S. EPA procedures classify land use within 3 kilometers of the site by the Auer method ( 2). Previous review of U. S. Geological Survey ( USGS) maps, aerial photographs, and site visits clearly indicated that the area is well over 50%

  " APFO" means ammonium perfluorooctanoate, and for the purposes of this report includes the anion of the acid perfluorooctanoic acid ( PFOA). Year 2002 Air Dispersion Modeling Analysis October 17, 2003 Page 3 non urban. The Washington Works facility is located within the Ohio River valley, and is surrounded by significant terrain features on both sides of this river valley. As a result, terrain elevations were considered in the modeling analysis.

The Industrial Source Complex Short Term Model ( ISCST3) was used as the primary model to estimate long term pollutant concentrations. ISCST3 is a steady state Gaussian model recommended by the U. S. EPA. It is included in the " Guideline on Air Quality Models"( 3) , which is codified as Appendix W to 40 CFR Part 51. It is appropriate for modeling of pollutant emissions from multiple, industrial type sources subject to significant building downwash. The downwash algorithms in the ISCST3 model provide a representation of the aerodynamic downwash of a stack plume caused by complex building configurations typical of industrial facilities. Refined ISCST3 modeling was conducted using one year ( 1996) of sequential hourly meteorology from the from the on site observation facility, as described above.

5. Receptor Selection A Cartesian grid of receptors was utilized in this modeling analysis. This grid consisted of the following:

  Fenceline receptors with a 100 m spacing between receptors   Receptors beyond the fenceline with 100 m spacing on a 5 km by 7 km grid All receptors are located along or outside the plant fenceline.

A Cartesian receptor grid of this type is considerably more dense than recommended by the U. S. EPA in the Guidelines on Air Quality Models for modeling a facility of this type. Terrain elevations for each of the receptors were imported from electronic files obtained from the U. S. Geological Survey ( USGS) using the " highest" method to assign an elevation to each receptor. The receptor grid used in the modeling analysis is shown graphically in Figure 2.

6. Modeling Procedures The most recent version of ISCST3 ( version 02035) was used in the air quality dispersion modeling of all receptors. All model options were set to the U. S. EPA regulatory default version of ISCST3. The model was run in the rural mode since the land area in the immediate vicinity of Washington Works is more than 50% rural. Any effects of aerodynamic downwash caused by structures adjacent to the modeled stack were included in the ISCST3 modeling analysis along with a summary of the building downwash input files ( BPIP). Air quality dispersion modeling was conducted on an hour by hour basis using the one year of meteorological data described above. The APFO modeling results were summarized for the annual averaging time period.

7. Results The results of the modeling analysis indicate a maximum predicted annual average APFO concentration of 1.36 ug/ m3. This maximum is located along the northern property fenceline, along the Ohio River, at UTM 442043 E, 4346883 N. The maximum predicted APFO concentration in an area where people may reside is 0.39 ug/ m3. This prediction is located at UTM 442600 E, 4347600 N, on the Ohio side of the river. The results are presented graphically in Figure 3. Year 2002 Air Dispersion Modeling Analysis October 17, 2003 Page 4 Table 1 *** POINT SOURCE DATA ***

BASE Emission STACK STACK STACK STACK SOURCE X Y ELEV. Rate HEIGHT TEMP. EXIT VEL. DIAMETER ID ( METERS) ( METERS) ( feet) ( lb/ hr) ( feet) ( DEG. F) ( ft/ sec) ( feet)

CEH 242 441954 4346741 659.4 0.1047 114.5 200.0 106.1 0.50 TIM 662 442025 4346847 636.5 0 149.9 172.0 40.2 1.33 TIE& TIF 699 442091 4346836 639.8 0.1019 170.0 124.0 27.9 4.00 CFS 274 441787 4346744 656.2 0.3424 109.9 254.9 44.6 0.69 RO22EEF86 442069 4346627 629.9 0.000034 48.9 80.0 40.0 2.00 RO22EEF89 442063 4346635 629.9 0.000068 48.9 80.0 20.0 2.00 TIF 644 442084 4346835 639.8 0.4397 59.1 110.9 169.8 1.50 THI 652 441920 4346767 649.6 0.0037 69.9 200.0 54.1 1.96 CDB 216 441960 4346788 659.4 0 60.0 158.1 34.5 1.30 RO22EEF6 442086 4346624 623.4 0.0014 46.9 80.0 30.0 2.50 RO22EEF87 442058 4346634 629.9 0.00034 48.9 80.0 10.0 2.00 THG 658 441923 4346756 649.6 0.0067 67.9 299.9 22.4 1.63 CFK 268 441774 4346753 643.0 0.0071 72.5 110.0 29.1 0.27 C1CA D 205 442310 4346800 656.2 0 6.7 70.0 84.9 0.50 CDT 231 441953 4346766 659.4 0.3622 81.0 130.0 28.4 0.67 CDW 232 441952 4346776 659.4 0.2626 93.2 130.0 23.6 0.67 TIV 697 442129 4346836 656.0 0.0049 45.0 66.0 15.2 1.67 TIF 694 442104 4346822 656.0 9.50E 03 45.0 66.0 15.2 1.67 TIE 647 442125 4346818 656.0 0.0033 69.0 230.0 57.0 1.67 TIF 648 442109 4346805 656.0 0.0024 69.0 230.0 57.0 1.67 Year 2002 Air Dispersion Modeling Analysis October 17, 2003 Page 5 Figure 1 Source and Building Locations Year 2002 Air Dispersion Modeling Analysis October 17, 2003 Page 6 Figure 2 Receptor Grid Used in the Modeling Analysis 439000 440000 441000 442000 443000 444000 445000 meters 4345000 4346000 4347000 4348000 4349000 meters Year 2002 Air Dispersion Modeling Analysis October 17, 2003 Page 7 439000 440000 441000 442000 443000 444000 445000 meters 4345000 4346000 4347000 4348000 4349000 meters Figure 3 APFO 2002 Modeled Emissions Annual Average Concentrations ( ug/ m3)

Contour Interval 0.1 ug/ m3 Year 2002 Air Dispersion Modeling Analysis October 17, 2003 Page 8 References ( 1) U. S. EPA, Meteorological Monitoring Guidance for Regulatory Modeling Applications, EPA 454/ R 99 005, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, February, 2000.

( 2) Auer, A. H., " Correlation of Land Use Cover with Meteorological Anomalies", Journal of Applied Meteorology, Vol. 17, pp. 636 643, 1978.

( 3) U. S. EPA, Guideline on Air Quality Models ( Revised), EPA 450/ 2 78 027R C, 2001.


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 160 (Tuesday, August 19, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49032-49033]
[FR Doc No: 2014-19556]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2014-0582; FRL-9915-29-Region 7]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of
Missouri, Certain Coals To Be Washed

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to approve
the State Implementation Plan (SIP)

revision submitted by the state of Missouri on May 8, 2012, related to
a Missouri Rule titled, ``Certain Coals to be Washed.'' This rule
requires specified coals to be washed prior to sale in the St. Louis
metropolitan area. This action amends the SIP to update an outdated
reference in the rule.

DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received in writing by
September 18, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2014-0582, by mail to Amy Bhesania, Environmental Protection
Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard,
Lenexa, Kansas 66219. Comments may also be submitted electronically or
through hand delivery/courier by following the detailed instructions in
the ADDRESSES section of the direct final rule located in the rules
section of this Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Bhesania, Environmental Protection
Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard,
Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the final rules section of the Federal
Register, EPA is approving the state's SIP revision as a direct final
rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a
noncontroversial revision amendment and anticipates no relevant adverse
comments to this action. A detailed rationale for the approval is set
forth in the direct final rule. If no relevant adverse comments are
received in response to this action, no further activity is
contemplated in relation to this action. If EPA receives relevant
adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all
public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule
based on this proposed action. EPA will not institute a second comment
period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this
action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives
adverse comment on part of this rule and if that part can be severed
from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those parts of
the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For additional
information, see the direct final rule which is located in the rules
section of this Federal Register.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: August 7, 2014.
Karl Brooks,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
[FR Doc. 2014-19556 Filed 8-18-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P