Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 33129 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have 

determined that this action is one of a 

category of actions that do not 

individually or cumulatively have a 

significant effect on the human 

environment. This rule involves a safety 

zone lasting less than thirty minutes 

that will prohibit entry into a designated 

area. It is categorically excluded from 

further review under paragraph L60(a) 

of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS 

Instruction Manual 023–01–001–01, 

Rev. 01. A Record of Environmental 

Consideration supporting this 

determination is available in the docket 

where indicated under ADDRESSES. 

G. Protest Activities 

The Coast Guard respects the First 

Amendment rights of protesters. 

Protesters are asked to contact the 

person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

coordinate protest activities so that your 

message can be received without 

jeopardizing the safety or security of 

people, places or vessels. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and record keeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 

33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. Add § 165.T09–0690 to read as 

follows: 

§ 165.T09–0690 Yankee Air Museum’s 

Fundraiser Air Demonstration, Lake St. 

Clair, Grosse Pointe Farms, MI. 

(a) Location. A safety zone is 

established to include all U.S. navigable 

waters of Lake St. Clair within the 

following corner points: Northeast 

corner, 42°24.670′ N, 082°51.594′ W, 

Northwest corner 42°24.671′ N, 

082°51.368′ W, Southeast corner 

42°24.034′ N, 082°51.857′ W, Southwest 

corner 42°24.023′ N, 082°51.626′ W 

(NAD 83). 

(b) Enforcement period. The regulated 

area described in paragraph (a) will be 

enforced 8 p.m. through 8:30 p.m. on 

July 18, 2018. 

(c) Regulations. (1) No vessel or 

person may enter, transit through, or 

anchor within the safety zone unless 

authorized by the Captain of the Port 

Detroit (COTP), or his on-scene 

representative. 

(2) The safety zone is closed to all 

vessel traffic, except as may be 

permitted by the COTP or his on-scene 

representative. 

(3) The ‘‘on-scene representative’’ of 

COTP is any Coast Guard 

commissioned, warrant or petty officer 

or a Federal, State, or local law 

enforcement officer designated by or 

assisting the Captain of the Port Detroit 

to act on his behalf. 

(4) Vessel operators shall contact the 

COTP or his on-scene representative to 

obtain permission to enter or operate 

within the safety zone. The COTP or his 

on-scene representative may be 

contacted via VHF Channel 16 or at 

313–568–9464. Vessel operators given 

permission to enter or operate in the 

regulated area must comply with all 

directions given to them by the COTP or 

his on-scene representative. 

Dated: July 11, 2018. 

Kevin D. Floyd, 

Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting 

Captain of the Port Detroit. 

[FR Doc. 2018–15182 Filed 7–16–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Patent and Trademark Office 

37 CFR Part 2 

[Docket No. PTO–T–2017–0032] 

RIN 0651–AD23 

Removal of Rules Governing 

Trademark Interferences 

AGENCY: United States Patent and 

Trademark Office, Commerce. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The United States Patent and 

Trademark Office (USPTO or Office) 

amends the Rules of Practice in 

Trademark Cases to remove the rules 

governing trademark interferences. This 

rule arises out of the USPTO’s work 

during FY 2017 to identify and propose 

regulations for removal, modification, 

and streamlining because they are 

outdated, unnecessary, ineffective, 

costly, or unduly burdensome on the 

agency or the private sector. The 

revisions put into effect the work the 

USPTO has done, in part through its 

participation in the Regulatory Reform 

Task Force (Task Force) established by 

the Department of Commerce 

(Department or Commerce) pursuant to 

Executive Order 13777, to review and 

identify regulations that are candidates 

for removal. 

DATES: This rule is effective on August 

16, 2018. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Catherine Cain, Office of the Deputy 

Commissioner for Trademark 

Examination Policy, by email at 

TMFRNotices@uspto.gov, or by 

telephone at (571) 272–8946. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

In accordance with Executive Order 

13777, ‘‘Enforcing the Regulatory 

Reform Agenda,’’ the Department 

established a Task Force, comprising, 

among others, agency officials from the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration, the Bureau of Industry 

and Security, and the USPTO, and 

charged the Task Force with evaluating 

existing regulations and identifying 

those that should be repealed, replaced, 

or modified because they are outdated, 

unnecessary, ineffective, costly, or 

unduly burdensome to both government 

and private-sector operations. 

To support its regulatory reform 

efforts on the Task Force, the USPTO 

assembled a Working Group on 

Regulatory Reform (Working Group), 

consisting of subject-matter experts from 

each of the business units that 

implement the USPTO’s regulations, to 

consider, review, and recommend ways 

that the regulations could be improved, 

revised, and streamlined. In considering 

the revisions, the USPTO, through its 

Working Group, incorporated into its 

analyses all presidential directives 

relating to regulatory reform. The 

Working Group reviewed existing 

regulations, both discretionary rules and 

those required by statute or judicial 

order. The USPTO also solicited 

comments from stakeholders through a 

web page established to provide 

information on the USPTO’s regulatory 

reform efforts and through the 

Department’s Federal Register Notice 

titled ‘‘Impact of Federal Regulations on 

Domestic Manufacturing’’ (82 FR 12786, 

Mar. 7, 2017), which addressed the 

impact of regulatory burdens on 

domestic manufacturing. These efforts 

led to the development of candidate 

regulations for removal based on the 

USPTO’s assessment that these 

regulations were not needed and/or that 

elimination could improve the USPTO’s 

body of regulations. This rule removes 

certain trademark-related regulations. 

Other rules removing regulations on 

other subject areas may be published 

separately. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
33130 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

II. Regulations Being Removed 

This rule removes the regulations 

concerning trademark interferences 

codified at 37 CFR 2.91–2.93, 2.96, and 

2.98. The rule also revises the authority 

citation for part 2 and revises the 

undesignated center heading 

‘‘INTERFERENCES AND CONCURRENT 

USE PROCEEDINGS’’ to read 

‘‘CONCURRENT USE PROCEEDINGS’’ 

to more accurately reflect the final 

regulations. A trademark interference is 

a proceeding in which the Trademark 

Trial and Appeal Board (Board) 

determines which, if any, of the owners 

of conflicting applications (or of one or 

more applications and one or more 

conflicting registrations) is entitled to 

registration. 15 U.S.C. 1066. A 

trademark interference can be declared 

only upon petition to the Director of the 

USPTO (Director). However, the 

Director will grant such a petition only 

if the petitioner can show extraordinary 

circumstances that would result in a 

party being unduly prejudiced in the 

absence of an interference. 37 CFR 

2.91(a). The availability of an opposition 

or cancellation proceeding to determine 

rights to registration ordinarily 

precludes the possibility of such undue 

prejudice to a party. Id. Thus, a 

petitioner must show that there is some 

extraordinary circumstance that would 

make the remedy of opposition or 

cancellation inadequate or prejudicial to 

the party’s rights. 

Trademark interferences have 

generally been limited to situations 

where a party would otherwise be 

required to engage in a series of 

opposition or cancellation proceedings 

involving substantially the same issues. 

Trademark Manual of Examining 

Procedure § 1507. The promulgation of 

the interference regulations suggests 

that at that time, the Office 

contemplated such situations arising 

with enough frequency to merit 

particular regulations governing 

interference proceedings. However, the 

rarity of interference proceedings over 

an extended period of time indicates 

that the regulations are unnecessary. To 

the extent that the USPTO’s paper 

petition records are searchable, the 

USPTO reviewed them and its 

electronic records of petitions and 

found that since 1983, the USPTO has 

received an average of approximately 

one petition for a trademark interference 

per year, and almost all of them have 

been denied except for one petition that 

was granted in 1985 (32 years ago). The 

USPTO has been unable to identify a 

situation since that time in which the 

Director has granted a petition to 

declare a trademark interference. Given 

the extremely low rate of filing over this 

long period of time, and because parties 

would still retain an avenue for seeking 

a declaration of interference through the 

general petition regulations, the USPTO 

considers the trademark interference 

regulations unnecessary. 

Section 16 of the Trademark Act, 15 

U.S.C. 1066, states that the Director may 

declare an interference ‘‘[u]pon petition 

showing extraordinary circumstances.’’ 

Although eliminating §§ 2.91–2.93, 2.96, 

and 2.98 removes the regulations 

regarding the requirements for declaring 

a trademark interference, the statutory 

authority will remain. On the rare 

occasion that the Office receives a 

request that the Director declare a 

trademark interference, it is currently 

submitted as a petition under 37 CFR 

2.146, a more general regulation on 

petitions. In the unlikely event that a 

need for an interference arose, it is still 

possible for a party to seek institution of 

a trademark interference by petitioning 

the Director under 37 CFR 2.146(a)(4), 

whereby a petitioner may seek relief in 

any case not specifically defined and 

provided for by Part 2 of Title 37. Thus, 

even after removal of these rules, parties 

retain an avenue for seeking a 

declaration of interference. 

Removal of the identified trademark 

interference regulations in this rule 

achieves the objective of making the 

USPTO regulations more effective and 

more streamlined, while enabling the 

USPTO to fulfill its mission goals. The 

USPTO’s economic analysis shows that 

while the removal of these regulations is 

not expected to substantially reduce the 

burden on the impacted community, the 

regulations are nonetheless being 

eliminated because they are ‘‘outdated, 

unnecessary, or ineffective’’ regulations 

encompassed by the directives in 

Executive Order 13777. 

III. Proposed Rule: Comments and 

Responses 

The USPTO published a proposed 

rule on October 18, 2017 at 82 FR 

48469, soliciting comments on the 

proposed amendments. In response, the 

USPTO received three comments 

relevant to the proposed rule. The 

commenters generally supported the 

proposed amendments as meeting the 

stated objectives. The USPTO 

appreciates the positive input, and these 

comments require no response. 

One commenter noted that the 

removal of the trademark interference 

rules will not relieve any burden, as a 

party can petition the Director to declare 

an interference with or without these 

rules, and suggested ‘‘that there should 

be real amendments which actually 

mitigate regulatory burden to incent 

entrepreneurship and market growth.’’ 

As noted above, removal of the 

identified regulations achieves the 

objective of making the USPTO 

regulations more effective and more 

streamlined, while enabling the USPTO 

to fulfill its mission goals. Moreover, 

although removal of these regulations is 

not expected to substantially reduce the 

burden on the impacted community, 

they are being eliminated because they 

are ‘‘outdated, unnecessary, or 

ineffective’’ regulations that are 

encompassed by the directives in 

Executive Order 13777. The Office 

sought public suggestions on regulatory 

changes to reduce burdens in order to 

benefit from the public’s input. 

All comments are posted on the 

USPTO’s website at https://

www.uspto.gov/trademark/trademarkupdates-and-announcements/ 

comments-proposed-rulemakingrelated-removal-rules. 

IV. Discussion of Rules Changes 

The USPTO revises the authority 

citation for part 2 to add ‘‘Sec. 2.99 also 

issued under secs. 16, 17, 60 Stat. 434; 

15 U.S.C. 1066, 1067.’’ The USPTO 

revises the undesignated center heading 

‘‘INTERFERENCES AND CONCURRENT 

USE PROCEEDINGS’’ to read 

‘‘CONCURRENT USE PROCEEDINGS’’ 

and removes the authority citation 

immediately following that heading. 

The USPTO removes and reserves 

§§ 2.91–2.93, 2.96, and 2.98. 

Rulemaking Considerations 

A. Administrative Procedure Act: The 

changes in this rulemaking involve rules 

of agency practice and procedure, and/ 

or interpretive rules. See Perez v. Mortg. 

Bankers Ass’n, 135 S. Ct. 1199, 1204 

(2015) (Interpretive rules ‘‘advise the 

public of the agency’s construction of 

the statutes and rules which it 

administers.’’ (citation and internal 

quotation marks omitted)); Nat’l Org. of 

Veterans’ Advocates v. Sec’y of Veterans 

Affairs, 260 F.3d 1365, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 

2001) (Rule that clarifies interpretation 

of a statute is interpretive.); Bachow 

Commc’ns Inc. v. FCC, 237 F.3d 683, 

690 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (Rules governing an 

application process are procedural 

under the Administrative Procedure 

Act.); Inova Alexandria Hosp. v. 

Shalala, 244 F.3d 342, 350 (4th Cir. 

2001) (Rules for handling appeals were 

procedural where they did not change 

the substantive standard for reviewing 

claims.). 

Accordingly, prior notice and 

opportunity for public comment for the 

changes in this rulemaking are not 

required pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b) or 

(c), or any other law. See Perez, 135 S. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 33131 

Ct. at 1206 (Notice-and-comment 

procedures are required neither when 

an agency ‘‘issue[s] an initial 

interpretive rule’’ nor ‘‘when it amends 

or repeals that interpretive rule.’’); 

Cooper Techs. Co. v. Dudas, 536 F.3d 

1330, 1336–37 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (stating 

that 5 U.S.C. 553, and thus 35 U.S.C. 

2(b)(2)(B), does not require notice and 

comment rulemaking for ‘‘interpretative 

rules, general statements of policy, or 

rules of agency organization, procedure, 

or practice’’ (quoting 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(A))). However, the Office chose 

to seek public comment before 

implementing the rule to benefit from 

the public’s input. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act: For the 

reasons set forth herein, the Senior 

Counsel for Regulatory and Legislative 

Affairs, Office of General Law, of the 

USPTO has certified to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration that this rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. See 5 U.S.C. 605(b). 

This rule removes the regulations 

addressing trademark interferences 

codified at 37 CFR 2.91–2.93, 2.96, and 

2.98. In trademark interferences, the 

Board determines which, if any, of the 

owners of conflicting applications (or of 

one or more applications and one or 

more conflicting registrations) is 

entitled to registration. 15 U.S.C. 1066. 

Where searchable, the USPTO reviewed 

its paper and electronic records of 

petitions and found that since 1983, 

USPTO has received an average of 

approximately 1 such petition a year, 

and almost all of them have been denied 

except for one petition that was granted 

in 1985 (32 years ago). Because these 

regulations have rarely been invoked in 

the last 32 years and no trademark 

interference proceedings occurred 

during that time, the USPTO considers 

these regulations unnecessary and has 

determined to remove them. Removing 

the trademark interference regulations 

in this rule achieves the objective of 

making the USPTO regulations more 

effective and more streamlined, while 

enabling the USPTO to fulfill its 

mission goals. The removal of these 

regulations is not expected to 

substantively impact parties as, in the 

unlikely event that a need for a 

trademark interference arose, a party 

would be able to petition the Director 

under 37 CFR 2.146(a)(4) for institution 

of an interference. For these reasons, 

this rulemaking will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

C. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory 

Planning and Review): This rulemaking 

has been determined to be not 

significant for purposes of Executive 

Order 12866. 

D. Executive Order 13563 (Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review): The 

Office has complied with Executive 

Order 13563. Specifically, the Office 

has, to the extent feasible and 

applicable: (1) Made a reasoned 

determination that the benefits justify 

the costs of the rule; (2) tailored the rule 

to impose the least burden on society 

consistent with obtaining the regulatory 

objectives; (3) selected a regulatory 

approach that maximizes net benefits; 

(4) specified performance objectives; (5) 

identified and assessed available 

alternatives; (6) involved the public in 

an open exchange of information and 

perspectives among experts in relevant 

disciplines, affected stakeholders in the 

private sector and the public as a whole, 

and provided on-line access to the 

rulemaking docket; (7) attempted to 

promote coordination, simplification, 

and harmonization across government 

agencies and identified goals designed 

to promote innovation; (8) considered 

approaches that reduce burdens and 

maintain flexibility and freedom of 

choice for the public; and (9) ensured 

the objectivity of scientific and 

technological information and 

processes. 

E. Executive Order 13771 (Reducing 

Regulation and Controlling Regulatory 

Costs): This rule is not an Executive 

Order 13771 regulatory action because 

this rule is not significant under 

Executive Order 12866. 

F. Executive Order 13132 

(Federalism): This rulemaking does not 

contain policies with federalism 

implications sufficient to warrant 

preparation of a Federalism Assessment 

under Executive Order 13132 (Aug. 4, 

1999). 

G. Executive Order 13175 (Tribal 

Consultation): This rulemaking will not: 

(1) Have substantial direct effects on one 

or more Indian tribes; (2) impose 

substantial direct compliance costs on 

Indian tribal governments; or (3) 

preempt tribal law. Therefore, a tribal 

summary impact statement is not 

required under Executive Order 13175 

(Nov. 6, 2000). 

H. Executive Order 13211 (Energy 

Effects): This rulemaking is not a 

significant energy action under 

Executive Order 13211 because this 

rulemaking is not likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy. Therefore, 

a Statement of Energy Effects is not 

required under Executive Order 13211 

(May 18, 2001). 

I. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice 

Reform): This rulemaking meets 

applicable standards to minimize 

litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and 

reduce burden as set forth in sections 

3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 

12988 (Feb. 5, 1996). 

J. Executive Order 13045 (Protection 

of Children): This rulemaking does not 

concern an environmental risk to health 

or safety that may disproportionately 

affect children under Executive Order 

13045 (Apr. 21, 1997). 

K. Executive Order 12630 (Taking of 

Private Property): This rulemaking will 

not affect a taking of private property or 

otherwise have taking implications 

under Executive Order 12630 (Mar. 15, 

1988). 

L. Congressional Review Act: Under 

the Congressional Review Act 

provisions of the Small Business 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 

1996 (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.), prior to 

issuing any final rule, the USPTO will 

submit a report containing the final rule 

and other required information to the 

United States Senate, the United States 

House of Representatives, and the 

Comptroller General of the Government 

Accountability Office. The changes in 

this notice are not expected to result in 

an annual effect on the economy of 100 

million dollars or more, a major increase 

in costs or prices, or significant adverse 

effects on competition, employment, 

investment, productivity, innovation, or 

the ability of United States-based 

enterprises to compete with foreignbased enterprises in domestic and 

export markets. Therefore, this notice is 

not expected to result in a ‘‘major rule’’ 

as defined in 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

M. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995: The changes set forth in this 

notice do not involve a Federal 

intergovernmental mandate that will 

result in the expenditure by State, local, 

and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 

of 100 million dollars (as adjusted) or 

more in any one year, or a Federal 

private sector mandate that will result 

in the expenditure by the private sector 

of 100 million dollars (as adjusted) or 

more in any one year, and will not 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. Therefore, no actions are 

necessary under the provisions of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995. See 2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq. 

N. National Environmental Policy 

Act: This rulemaking will not have any 

effect on the quality of the environment 

and is thus categorically excluded from 

review under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969. See 

42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq. 

O. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act: The requirements of 

section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) are not 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES
33132 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 137 / Tuesday, July 17, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

applicable because this rulemaking does 

not contain provisions that involve the 

use of technical standards. 

P. Paperwork Reduction Act: This 

rulemaking involves information 

collection requirements which are 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). The collection 

of information involved in this rule has 

been reviewed and previously approved 

by OMB under control number 0651– 

0054. 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of law, no person is required to respond 

to nor shall a person be subject to a 

penalty for failure to comply with a 

collection of information subject to the 

requirements of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act unless that collection of 

information displays a currently valid 

OMB control number. 

List of Subjects for 37 CFR Part 2 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Trademarks. 

For the reasons stated in the preamble 

and under the authority contained in 15 

U.S.C. 1123 and 35 U.S.C. 2, as 

amended, the Office amends part 2 of 

title 37 as follows: 

PART 2—RULES OF PRACTICE IN 

TRADEMARK CASES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 2 is 

revised to read as follows: 

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1123 and 35 U.S.C. 

2 unless otherwise noted. Sec. 2.99 also 

issued under secs. 16, 17, 60 Stat. 434; 15 

U.S.C. 1066, 1067. 

■ 2. Revise the undesignated center 

heading ‘‘INTERFERENCES AND 

CONCURRENT USE PROCEEDINGS’’ 

above § 2.91 to read ‘‘CONCURRENT 

USE PROCEEDINGS’’ and remove the 

authority citation immediately 

following that heading. 

§ 2.91 [Reserved and Reserved] 

■ 3. Remove and reserve § 2.91. 

§ 2.92 [Reserved and Reserved] 

■ 4. Remove and reserve § 2.92. 

§ 2.93 [Reserved and Reserved] 

■ 5. Remove and reserve § 2.93. 

§ 2.96 [Reserved and Reserved] 

■ 6. Remove and reserve § 2.96. 

§ 2.98 [Reserved and Reserved] 

■ 7. Remove and reserve § 2.98. 

Dated: July 10, 2018. 

Andrei Iancu, 

Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual 

Property and Director of the United States 

Patent and Trademark Office. 

[FR Doc. 2018–15163 Filed 7–16–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–16–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2017–0740; FRL–9980– 

81—Region 4] 

Air Plan Approval; Tennessee; 

Revisions to Stage I and II Vapor 

Recovery Requirements 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the State of Tennessee 

through the Tennessee Department of 

Environment and Conservation (TDEC) 

on November 11, 2017, for the purpose 

of establishing minor changes to the 

gasoline dispensing regulations, 

including adding clarifying language 

and effective and compliance dates and 

specifying the counties subject to the 

reporting requirement rule. EPA has 

determined that Tennessee’s November 

11, 2017, SIP revision is approvable 

because it is consistent with the Clean 

Air Act (CAA or Act) and with EPA’s 

regulations and guidance. 

DATES: This rule is effective August 16, 

2018. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

Identification No. EPA–R04–OAR– 

2017–0740. All documents in the docket 

are listed on the www.regulations.gov 

website. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., Confidential Business 

Information 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 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Regulatory Management Section, 

Air Planning and Implementation 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, 

Georgia 30303–8960. EPA requests that 

if at all possible, you contact the person 

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 Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kelly Sheckler, Air Regulatory 

Management Section, Air Planning and 

Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides 

and Toxics Management Division, 

Region 4, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, 

Georgia 30303–8960. The telephone 

number is (404) 562–9222. Ms. Sheckler 

can also be reached via electronic mail 

at sheckler.kelly@

epa.govsheckler.kelly@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On November 11, 2017, TDEC 

submitted a SIP revision to EPA seeking 

to add clarity for the benefit of the 

regulated community with gasoline 

dispensing facilities. Tennessee is 

making a minor change to its rules 

regarding gasoline dispensing facilities 

(GDF) at subparagraph (1)(d) of rule 

1200–03–18–.24—‘‘For any GDF 

otherwise exempt from subparagraph (c) 

of this paragraph based on monthly 

throughput, if the GDF ever exceeds the 

applicability threshold specified in 

subparagraph (c) of this paragraph, it 

shall be subject to the requirements of 

subparagraph (c) of this paragraph and 

shall remain subject to those 

requirements even if its throughput later 

falls below the threshold. The owner or 

operator shall inform the Technical 

Secretary within 30 days following the 

exceedance.’’ The revision clarifies the 

meaning and application of 

subparagraph (1)(d) of rule 1200–03–18– 

.24 by adding the words ‘‘ever’’ and 

‘‘and shall remain subject to those 

requirements’’ italicized above. 

In addition, this revision replaces the 

phrase ‘‘the effective date of this rule’’ 

with the actual effective date of the rule 

(July 14, 2016) and replaces ‘‘three years 

after effective date’’ with the actual date 

of the rule for compliance (August 14, 

2019). Finally, this revision adds the list 

of counties (Davidson, Rutherford, 

Shelby, Sumner, Knox, Anderson, 

Williamson and Wilson) that need to 

report to their permitting authority (if 

they emit more than 25 tons in a 

calendar year) and the cross reference to 

the existing reporting requirement in 

rule 1200–03–18–.02 to simplify the 

issuances of notices of authorization 

under pending permit-by-rule 

provisions. 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with RULES