44262 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 142 / Monday, July 25, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

1 Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer 

Protection Act, Pub. L. 111–203, 124 Stat. 1376 

(2010). The text of the Dodd-Frank Act may be 

accessed at http://www.cftc.gov/LawRegulation/ 

OTCDERIVATIVES/index.htm. 

2Commission regulations that are referenced 

herein are found at 17 CFR Ch. 1 (2010). They are 

accessible on the Commission’s Web site at 

http://www.cftc.gov. 

3 75 FR 67254, Nov. 2, 2010. 

4Separately, the Commission issued Notices of 

Proposed Rulemaking that addressed references to 

credit ratings in Commission Regulations 1.25 and 

30.7, and in Appendix A to Part 40. See 

‘‘Investment of Customer Funds and Funds Held in 

an Account for Foreign Futures and Foreign 

Options Transactions,’’ 75 FR 67642, Nov. 3, 2010 

(proposing amendments to Regulations 1.25 and 

30.7); ‘‘Provisions Common to Registered Entities,’’ 

75 FR 67282, Nov. 2, 2010 (proposing to delete the 

current Appendix A of Part 40). The amendments 

proposed in those Notices are not addressed herein 

and may be subject to future Commission 

rulemaking. 

5See 68 FR 5545, 5548, Feb. 4, 2003 (noting the 

Commission’s view that consistency between 

Regulations 1.49 and 30.7 on this issue is 

‘‘appropriate’’). In a separate release, the 

Commission has proposed amendments to 

Regulation 30.7 that are similar to the amendments 

to Regulation 1.49 addressed herein. See supra note 

4. 

Dated: July 20, 2011. 

Kevin J. Wolf, 

Assistant Secretary for Export 

Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2011–18718 Filed 7–22–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–33–P 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING 

COMMISSION 

17 CFR Parts 1 and 4 

RIN 3038–AD11 

Removing Any Reference to or 

Reliance on Credit Ratings in 

Commission Regulations; Proposing 

Alternatives to the Use of Credit 

Ratings 

AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Commodity Futures 

Trading Commission (‘‘Commission’’ or 

‘‘CFTC’’) is adopting a final rule that 

amends existing CFTC regulations in 

order to implement new statutory 

provisions enacted by Title IX of the 

Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and 

Consumer Protection Act (‘‘Dodd-Frank 

Act’’). The rule amendments set forth 

herein apply to futures commission 

merchants (‘‘FCMs’’), derivatives 

clearing organizations (‘‘DCOs’’), and 

commodity pool operators (‘‘CPOs’’). 

The rule amendments implement the 

new statutory framework that requires 

agencies to replace any reference to or 

reliance on credit ratings in their 

regulations with an appropriate 

alternative standard. 

DATES: This rule is effective September 

23, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ward P. Griffin, Counsel, Office of 

General Counsel, Commodity Futures 

Trading Commission, Three Lafayette 

Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW, 

Washington, DC 20581. Telephone: 

202–418–5425. E-mail: 

wgriffin@cftc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On July 21, 2010, President Obama 

signed into law the Dodd-Frank Act.1 In 

relevant part, Title IX of the Dodd-Frank 

Act directs Federal agencies to take 

certain actions concerning any reference 

to—or requirement of reliance on— 

credit ratings in each agency’s 

respective regulations. Specifically, 

section 939A of the Dodd-Frank Act 

requires agencies to take three actions 

by July 21, 2011, the one-year 

anniversary of the enactment of the 

Dodd-Frank Act. First, section 939A(a) 

directs each Federal agency to review 

‘‘any regulation issued by such agency 

that requires the use of an assessment of 

the credit-worthiness of a security or 

money market instrument [and] any 

references to or requirements in such 

regulations regarding credit ratings.’’ 

Second, section 939A(b) requires that 

each Federal agency ‘‘modify any such 

regulations identified by the review 

conducted under subsection (a) to 

remove any reference to or requirement 

of reliance on credit ratings and to 

substitute in such regulations such 

standard of credit-worthiness as each 

respective agency shall determine as 

appropriate for such regulations.’’ To 

the extent feasible, Federal agencies 

should ‘‘seek to establish * * * uniform 

standards of credit-worthiness for use 

by each such agency.’’ And third, 

section 939A(c) directs each Federal 

agency to report to Congress ‘‘a 

description of any modification of any 

regulation such agency made pursuant 

to subsection (b).’’ 

Subsequent to the enactment of the 

Dodd-Frank Act, the Commission 

reviewed its regulations and identified 

instances in which credit ratings were 

referred to or relied upon.2 The 

identified regulations could be 

categorized into two groups: (1) those 

that rely on ratings to limit how 

Commission registrants may invest or 

deposit customer funds; and (2) those 

that require disclosing a credit rating to 

describe an investment’s characteristics. 

In keeping with its efforts to comply 

fully with both the spirit and letter of 

the Dodd-Frank Act, the Commission 

proposed to amend all of the identified 

regulations that rely on credit ratings 

regarding financial instruments. 

On November 2, 2010, the 

Commission published in the Federal 

Register proposed amendments to 

certain of its existing regulations (the 

‘‘Proposing Release’’) in response to the 

directives set forth in section 939A of 

the Dodd-Frank Act.3 Specifically, the 

Commission addressed two regulations 

in the Proposing Release: (1) Regulation 

1.49, which places qualifications on the 

types of depositories where FCMs and 

DCOs might place customer funds; and 

(2) Regulation 4.24, wherein credit 

ratings are used to help disclose the 

characteristics of an investment.4

Regulation 1.49, which mirrors 

Regulation 30.7,5 requires that an 

acceptable foreign depository must 

either: (1) Have in excess of $1 billion 

of regulatory capital; or (2) issue 

commercial paper or a long-term debt 

instrument that is rated in one of the 

two highest rating categories by at least 

one nationally recognized statistical 

rating organization (‘‘NRSRO’’). In the 

Proposing Release, the Commission 

proposed to remove all ratings 

requirements from Regulation 1.49. The 

Commission based its proposal on its 

views regarding the uncertain reliability 

of ratings as currently administered, 

particularly in light of the significant 

weaknesses of the ratings industry that 

were revealed in recent years. The 

Commission noted the poor past 

performance of credit ratings in gauging 

the safety of certain types of 

investments, and its view that credit 

ratings are not necessary to gauge the 

future ability of certain types of 

investments to preserve customer funds. 

The proposal was intended to align 

Regulation 1.49 with proposed 

Regulations 1.25 and 30.7, and to greater 

simplify the regulatory treatment of the 

investment of customer funds. 

With respect to the proposed 

amendment of Regulation 1.49, the 

Commission requested comment on: (1) 

Whether relying on a minimum capital 

requirement of $1 billion dollars in 

regulatory capital is an adequate 

alternative standard to the current 

Regulation 1.49; and (2) whether 

another standard or measure of solvency 

and credit-worthiness should be used as 

an appropriate, additional test of a 

bank’s safety, such as a leverage ratio or 

a capital adequacy ratio requirement 

consistent with or similar to those in the 

Basel III accords. The Commission also 

stated that it would welcome any other 

comments on the proposal. 


rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 142 / Monday, July 25, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 44263 

6See ‘‘Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

Regarding Alternatives to the Use of Credit Ratings 

in the Risk-Based Capital Guidelines of the Federal 

Banking Agencies,’’ 75 FR 52283, Aug. 25, 2010. 

7The rule amends the qualifications required of 

non-U.S. depositories in which customer funds may 

be held and alters the disclosures that CPOs must 

provide to their customers. Given the characteristics 

of the rule and its anticipated effect, the 

Commission does not believe that the rule will 

impact the efficiency or competitiveness of futures 

markets, or have any effect on price discovery. 

8See 75 FR 67254, 67256, Nov. 2, 2010. 9 Id. 

In addition to the proposed 

amendment to Regulation 1.49, the 

Proposing Release also proposed to 

amend Regulation 4.24. Regulation 4.24 

requires CPOs to disclose the 

characteristics of the commodity and 

other interests that the pool will trade, 

including, if applicable, their 

investment rating. In order to comply 

fully with the spirit and letter of the 

Dodd-Frank Act, the Commission 

proposed removing the references to 

ratings in Regulation 4.24 and replacing 

that reference with the phrase ‘‘creditworthiness.’’ In the Proposing Release, 

the Commission expressly noted that 

CPOs may still choose to reference an 

investment rating to describe the creditworthiness of an investment in its 

disclosures. However, the Commission 

noted that the CPO as appropriate 

should make an independent 

assessment of the credit-worthiness of 

those investments. 

The Commission requested comment 

on its proposed amendment of 

Regulation 4.24, particularly with 

respect to what effect the removal of the 

credit ratings reference in Regulation 

4.24 might have on the ability of 

investors and others to understand the 

disclosures of CPOs regarding the 

characteristics of a commodity pool. 

The Commission also requested 

comment on the ability of CPOs to make 

independent assessments of the creditworthiness of their pool’s investments. 

II. Comments on the Proposing Release 

In response to the Proposing Release, 

the Commission received three 

comments, two of which were not 

responsive to the issues presented in the 

Notice. The other commenter forwarded 

a letter originally submitted in response 

to an advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking issued by the Federal 

banking agencies.6 The commenter 

discussed issues and options 

surrounding the implementation of 

section 939A of the Dodd-Frank Act, 

and offered analytical services to refine 

alternatives to credit ratings. However, 

the commenter did not raise any factual 

or policy concern relating to the rule 

amendments proposed by the 

Commission in the Proposing Release. 

After considering the comments 

received in response to the Proposing 

Release, the Commission has 

determined to amend Regulations 1.49 

and 4.24 as proposed. Section 939A of 

the Dodd-Frank Act directs each Federal 

agency, including the Commission, ‘‘to 

remove any reference to or requirement 

of reliance on credit ratings and to 

substitute in such regulations such 

standard of credit-worthiness as each 

respective agency shall determine as 

appropriate for such regulations.’’ As 

acknowledged in the Proposing Release, 

the Commission proposed the 

amendments to Regulations 1.49 and 

4.24, in part, to facilitate ‘‘its efforts to 

fully comply with both the spirit and 

letter of the Dodd-Frank Act.’’ The 

amendments set forth herein are 

narrowly tailored to accomplish that 

task, while maintaining the commitment 

to the protection of customer funds that 

the Commission continually has 

promoted over the years. 

III. Consideration of Costs and Benefits 

Under Section 15(A) of the Commodity 

Exchange Act (‘‘CEA’’) 

Section 15(a) of the CEA requires the 

Commission to consider the costs and 

benefits of its actions before issuing a 

rulemaking under the Act. Section 15(a) 

further specifies that the costs and 

benefits shall be evaluated in light of the 

five broad areas of market and public 

concern: (1) Protection of market 

participants and the public; (2) 

efficiency, competitiveness and 

financial integrity of futures markets; (3) 

price discovery; (4) sound risk 

management practices; and (5) other 

public interest considerations.7 The 

Commission may in its discretion give 

greater weight to any one of the five 

enumerated areas and could in its 

discretion determine that, 

notwithstanding its costs, a particular 

rule is necessary or appropriate to 

protect the public interest or to 

effectuate any of the provisions or 

accomplish any of the purposes of the 

Act. 

Although the Commission specifically 

requested public comment on 

appropriate alternatives to the rule 

language contained in the Proposing 

Release,8 the Commission received no 

such comments, nor did the 

Commission receive any substantive 

comments on the costs and benefits 

related to the rule. Section 939A 

instructs the Commission to implement 

the removal of any references to or 

reliance on credit ratings in its rules and 

regulations. 

Because of the statutory requirement 

to remove the reference to credit ratings 

from Regulation 1.49, investments in 

foreign depositories that have less than 

$1 billion in regulatory capital, but that 

previously were eligible depositories in 

reliance upon their credit ratings, may 

no longer be eligible depositories for 

customer funds. The consequences of 

this regulatory action may impose 

transaction costs associated with 

transferring customer funds, if 

necessary, to another depositor if a 

foreign depository is no longer eligible. 

Costs also may be borne by foreign 

banks or trusts that will no longer be 

eligible to receive deposits of customer 

funds under Regulation 1.49, given the 

resultant loss of business. 

However, the amendments to 

Regulation 1.49 reflect the statutory 

mandate set forth under section 939A of 

the Dodd-Frank Act. The Commission 

acknowledged in the Proposing Release 

the uncertain reliability of ratings as 

currently administered, the poor past 

performance of credit ratings in gauging 

the safety of certain types of 

investments, and the Commission’s 

view that credit ratings are not 

necessary to gauge the future ability of 

certain types of investments to preserve 

customer funds. Although the 

Commission specifically ‘‘request[ed] 

comment on whether there is another 

standard or measure of solvency and 

creditworthiness that might be used as 

an appropriate, additional test of a 

bank’s safety,’’ 9 the Commission 

received no comments offering an 

appropriate alternative to the 

amendments to Regulation 1.49 that 

were contained in the Proposing 

Release. In light of the uncertain 

reliability of ratings and their poor past 

performance, the Commission believes 

that the elimination of references to 

credit ratings in Regulation 1.49 will 

enhance the protection of market 

participants and the public, as well as 

enhance sound risk management 

practices, by requiring that if customer 

funds are held in a non-U.S. bank or 

trust company, the non-U.S. bank or 

trust company have more than $1 

billion of regulatory capital. The capital 

standard will afford greater protection of 

customer funds. Such protections will, 

in turn, promote the financial integrity 

of futures markets by reducing the 

likelihood of loss, relative to the status 

quo. 

Similarly, the statutory requirement to 

modify Regulation 4.24 has the potential 

benefit of reducing risk in the financial 

system by placing more responsibility 

on CPOs to fully understand the creditVerDate Mar<15>2010 14:55 Jul 22, 2011 Jkt 223001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25JYR1.SGM 25JYR1

rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with RULES
44264 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 142 / Monday, July 25, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 

10 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. 

11 47 FR 18618, 18619, Apr. 30, 1982. 

12 66 FR 45604, 45609, Aug. 29, 2001. 

13 47 FR at 18619–20. 

14See 75 FR 67254, 67256, Nov. 2, 2010. 15 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 

worthiness of investments. CPOs will be 

required to make an independent 

assessment, as appropriate, of the creditworthiness of investments in their 

portfolio rather than relying solely on 

credit ratings, though CPOs will not be 

prohibited from relying on credit 

ratings, as appropriate. Customers of 

CPOs may benefit from improved 

disclosure of the credit-worthiness of 

the investments in which funds are 

placed. In light of the specific issues 

identified by the Commission 

concerning the reliance of credit ratings, 

as discussed in greater detail supra, the 

Commission believes that the rule will 

enhance the protection of market 

participants and the public, promote the 

financial integrity of futures markets, 

and enhance sound risk management 

practices. Costs may be imposed on 

CPOs in improving their ability to make 

independent assessments of creditworthiness. Although CPOs will not be 

prohibited from relying on credit ratings 

under Regulation 4.24, circumstances 

may require a CPO to engage in further 

assessments of the credit-worthiness of 

the investments in which funds are 

placed, as appropriate, beyond merely 

citing the ratings of those investments 

by a NRSRO. However, notwithstanding 

its costs, this rule is necessary and 

appropriate to protect the public 

interest, and effectuates the mandate 

prescribed in section 939A of the DoddFrank Act. 

IV. Related Matters 

A. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(‘‘RFA’’) requires Federal agencies, in 

promulgating rules, to consider the 

impact of those rules on small 

businesses, and whether the rules will 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities.10

The rule amendments proposed herein 

will affect FCMs, DCOs, and CPOs. The 

Commission previously has established 

certain definitions of ‘‘small entities’’ to 

be used by the Commission in 

evaluating the impact of its regulations 

on small entities in accordance with the 

RFA, and has determined that registered 

FCMs,11 DCOs,12 and CPOs 13 are not 

small entities for the purpose of the 

RFA. Accordingly, as set forth in the 

Proposing Release,14 the Chairman, on 

behalf of the Commission and pursuant 

to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), certifies that the 

proposed rules will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act 

(‘‘PRA’’) 15 imposes certain 

requirements on Federal agencies 

(including the Commission) in 

connection with their conducting or 

sponsoring any collection of 

information as defined by the PRA. 

These rule amendments do not require 

a new collection of information on the 

part of any entities subject to the rule 

amendments. Accordingly, for purposes 

of the PRA, the Commission certifies 

that these rule amendments will not 

impose any new reporting or 

recordkeeping requirements. 

List of Subjects 

17 CFR Part 1 

Brokers, Commodity futures, 

Consumer protection. 

17 CFR Part 4 

Advertising, Commodity futures, 

Commodity pool operators, Commodity 

trading advisors, Consumer protection, 

Disclosure, Principals, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

For the reasons stated in this release, 

the Commission hereby amends 17 CFR 

parts 1 and 4 as follows: 

PART 1—GENERAL REGULATIONS 

UNDER THE COMMODITY EXCHANGE 

ACT 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 1 is 

revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1a, 2, 5, 6, 6a, 6b, 6c, 

6d, 6e, 6f, 6g, 6h, 6i, 6k, 6m, 6n, 6o, 6p, 7, 

7a, 7b, 8, 9, 12, 12a, 12c, 13a, 13a–1, 16, 16a, 

19, 21, 23, and 24, as amended by the DoddFrank Wall Street Reform and Consumer 

Protection Act, Pub. L. 111–203, 124 Stat. 

1376 (2010), and the Commodity Futures 

Modernization Act of 2000, Appendix E of 

Pub. L. 106–554, 114 Stat. 2763 (2000). 

■ 2. Section 1.49 is amended by revising 

paragraph (d)(3) to read as follows: 

§ 1.49 Denomination of customer funds 

and location of depositories. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(3) A depository, if located outside the 

United States, must be: 

(i) A bank or trust company that has 

in excess of $1 billion of regulatory 

capital; 

(ii) A futures commission merchant 

that is registered as such with the 

Commission; or 

(iii) A derivatives clearing 

organization. 

* * * * * 

PART 4—COMMODITY POOL 

OPERATORS AND COMMODITY 

TRADING ADVISORS 

■ 3. The authority citation for part 4 is 

revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1a, 2, 4, 6(c), 6b, 6c, 6l, 

6m, 6n, 6o, 12a and 23, as amended by the 

Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and 

Consumer Protection Act, Pub. L. 111–203, 

124 Stat. 1376 (2010). 

■ 4. Section 4.24 is amended by revising 

paragraph (h)(1)(i) to read as follows: 

§ 4.24 General disclosures required. 

* * * * * 

(h) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(i) The approximate percentage of the 

pool’s assets that will be used to trade 

commodity interests, securities and 

other types of interests, categorized by 

type of commodity or market sector, 

type of security (debt, equity, preferred 

equity), whether traded or listed on a 

regulated exchange market, maturity 

ranges and credit-worthiness, as 

applicable; 

* * * * * 

By the Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission. 

Dated: July 20, 2011. 

David A. Stawick, 

Secretary. 

Appendices to Removing Any 

Reference to or Reliance on Credit 

Ratings in Commission Regulations; 

Proposing Alternatives to the Use of 

Credit Ratings—Commission Voting 

Summary and Statements of 

Commissioners 

Note: The following appendices will not 

appear in the Code of Federal Regulations. 

Appendix 1—Commission Voting 

Summary 

On this matter, Chairman Gensler and 

Commissioners Dunn, Sommers, Chilton and 

O’Malia voted in the affirmative; no 

Commissioner voted in the negative. 

Appendix 2—Statement of Chairman 

Gary Gensler 

I support the final rulemaking to remove 

references to credit ratings within the CFTC’s 

regulations. Under Title IX of the Dodd-Frank 

Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection 

Act, Congress required the Commission to 

review credit rating references in our existing 

regulations and remove reliance upon them. 

The rule removes them from Regulation 1.49, 

which limits the types of non-U.S. banks in 

which futures commission merchants and 

derivatives clearing organizations may place 

customer funds. The rule also removes them 

from Regulation 4.24, which requires 

commodity pool operators to disclose to their 

customers where they are putting customer 


rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 142 / Monday, July 25, 2011 / Rules and Regulations 44265 

money. Other references included in 

Regulations 1.25 and 30.7 will be taken up 

when the Commission considers the 

proposed rulemaking related to investment of 

customer funds. 

[FR Doc. 2011–18777 Filed 7–22–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6351–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration 

29 CFR Part 1910 

[Docket No. OSHA–S049–2006–0675 

(Formerly Docket No. S–049)] 

RIN 1218–AB50 

General Working Conditions in 

Shipyard Employment; Correction 

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA), Labor. 

ACTION: Final rule; correction. 

SUMMARY: The Occupational Safety and 

Health Administration is correcting a 

final rule on General Working 

Conditions in Shipyard Employment 

published in the Federal Register of 

May 2, 2011 (76 FR 24576). 

DATES: Effective August 1, 2011. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Press inquiries: Frank Meilinger, 

Office of Communications, OSHA, U.S. 

Department of Labor, Room N–3647, 

200 Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20210; telephone: (202) 

693–1999. 

General and technical information: 

Joseph V. Daddura, Director, Office of 

Maritime, Directorate of Standards and 

Guidance, OSHA, U.S. Department of 

Labor, Room N–3621, 200 Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; 

telephone (202) 693–2222. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

In FR Doc. 2011–9567 appearing on 

page 24576 in the Federal Register of 

Monday, May 2, 2011, the following 

corrections are made: 

§ 1910.145 [Corrected] 

■ 1. On page 24698, in the first column, 

in § 1910.145, in paragraph (a)(1), the 

first sentence ‘‘These specifications 

apply to the design, application, and use 

of signs or symbols (as included in 

paragraphs (c) through (e) of this 

section) that indicate and, insofar as 

possible, define specific hazards that 

could harm workers or the public, or 

both, or to property damage’’ is 

corrected to read ‘‘These specifications 

apply to the design, application, and use 

of signs or symbols (as included in 

paragraphs (c) through (e) of this 

section) intended to indicate and, 

insofar as possible, to define specific 

hazards of a nature such that failure to 

designate them may lead to accidental 

injury to workers or the public, or both, 

or to property damage.’’ 

§ 1910.147 [Corrected] 

■ 2. On page 24698, in the second 

column, in § 1910.147, in paragraph 

(a)(1)(i), the first sentence ‘‘This 

standard covers the servicing and 

maintenance of machines and 

equipment in which the energization or 

start up of the machines or equipment, 

or release of stored energy, could harm 

employees’’ is corrected to read ‘‘This 

standard covers the servicing and 

maintenance of machines and 

equipment in which the unexpected 

energization or start up of the machines 

or equipment, or release of stored 

energy could cause injury to 

employees.’’ 

Signed at Washington, DC, on July 19, 

2011. 

David Michaels, 

Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational 

Safety and Health. 

[FR Doc. 2011–18601 Filed 7–22–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–26–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2010–0303; FRL–9441–5] 

Approval and Disapproval and 

Promulgation of State Implementation 

Plan Revisions; Infrastructure 

Requirements for the 1997 8-Hour 

Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard; Wyoming 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is partially approving 

and partially disapproving the State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submission 

from the State of Wyoming to 

demonstrate that the SIP meets the 

requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and 

(2) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) promulgated for ozone on July 

18, 1997. Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA 

requires that each state, after a new or 

revised NAAQS is promulgated, review 

their SIPs to ensure that they meet the 

requirements of the ‘‘infrastructure 

elements’’ of section 110(a)(2). The State 

of Wyoming submitted two 

certifications, dated December 7, 2007 

and December 10, 2009, that its SIP met 

these requirements for the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS. The December 7, 2007 

certification was determined to be 

complete on March 27, 2008 (73 FR 

16205). In addition, EPA is approving a 

May 11, 2011 SIP submittal from the 

State that revises the State’s Prevention 

of Significant Deterioration (PSD) 

program. 

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is 

effective August 24, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R08–OAR–2010–0303. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

http://www.regulations.gov or in hard 

copy at the Air Program, Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 

1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129. EPA requests that if at all 

possible, you contact the individual 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section to view the hard copy 

of the docket. You may view the hard 

copy of the docket Monday through 

Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kathy Dolan, Air Program, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P–AR, 

1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129. 303–312–6142, 

dolan.kathy@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Definitions 

For the purpose of this document, we 

are giving meaning to certain words or 

initials as follows: 

(i) The words or initials Act or CAA 

mean or refer to the Clean Air Act, 

unless the context indicates otherwise. 

(ii) The words EPA, we, us or our 

mean or refer to the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

(iii) The initials SIP mean or refer to 

State Implementation Plan. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Comments 

III. Final Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 


rmajette on DSK89S0YB1PROD with RULES