Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 42 / Friday, March 1, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 15031 

4Comment Submitted by Anonymous, FTC Seek 

Comments on Advanced Notice of Proposed Rule; 

Impersonation ANPR, Regulations.gov (Feb. 22, 

2022), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC2021-0077-0131. 

5Comment Submitted by Jamila Sherman, FTC 

Seek Comments on Advanced Notice of Proposed 

Rule; Impersonation ANPR, Regulations.gov (Feb. 

22, 2022), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/ 

FTC-2021-0077-0127. 

6Comment Submitted by Susan Frost, FTC Seek 

Comments on Advanced Notice of Proposed Rule; 

Impersonation ANPR, Regulations.gov (Feb. 16, 

2022), https://www.regulations.gov/comment/FTC2021-0077-0031. 

7Bob Violino, AI Tools Such As ChatGPT Are 

Generating A Mammoth Increase In Malicious 

Phishing Emails, CNBC (Nov. 28, 2023), https://

www.cnbc.com/2023/11/28/ai-like-chatgpt-iscreating-huge-increase-in-malicious-phishingemail.html. 

8Eric Revell, AI Voice Cloning Scams On The 

Rise, Expert Warns, Fox Business (Sept. 23, 2023), 

https://www.foxbusiness.com/technology/ai-voicecloning-scams-on-rise-expert-warns. 

9AMG Cap. Mgmt., LLC v. FTC, 593 U.S. (2021). 

10Press Release, Fed. Trade Comm’n, FTC Votes 

to Update Rulemaking Procedures, Sets Stage for 

Stronger Deterrence of Corporate Misconduct (July 

1, 2021), https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/ 

press-releases/2021/07/ftc-votes-updaterulemaking-procedures-sets-stage-strongerdeterrence-corporate-misconduct. 

penalties for depleting it. This woman is 

now, at age 70, in a position of living 

only on her social security and has to 

try to find work. . . .’’ 4

• Another commenter received a call

from someone claiming to be with the 

U.S. Treasury Department, who asserted 

that her social security number had 

been compromised. This person lost all 

her money: ‘‘That money is from my 

mother’s life insurance policy who 

passed in 2019. My father needs that 

money to survive. I am devastated.’’ 5

• A third commenter spoke of her

mother being scammed by someone 

pretending to be with a government 

agency: ‘‘Before we, her family, realized 

the extent to which the imposters 

preyed upon her, she had divulged 

identity and banking information.’’ 6

The rise of generative AI technologies 

risks making these problems worse by 

turbocharging scammers’ ability to 

defraud the public in new, more 

personalized ways. For example, the 

proliferation of AI chatbots gives 

scammers the ability to generate spearphishing emails using individuals’ 

social media posts and to instruct bots 

to use words and phrases targeted at 

specific groups and communities.7 AIenabled voice cloning fraud is also on 

the rise, where scammers use voicecloning tools to impersonate the voice of 

a loved one seeking money in distress 

or a celebrity peddling fake goods.8

Scammers can use these technologies to 

disseminate fraud more cheaply, more 

precisely, and on a much wider scale 

than ever before. 

In its supplemental NPRM, the 

Commission proposes to expand the 

rule’s prohibitions to also cover 

impersonation of individuals. If 

adopted, this additional protection will 

equip enforcers to seek civil penalties 

and redress when fraudsters 

impersonate individual people, not just 

government or business entities. Given 

the proliferation of AI-enabled fraud, 

this additional protection seems 

especially critical. Notably, the 

supplemental proposal also 

recommends extending liability to any 

actor that provides the ‘‘means and 

instrumentalities’’ to commit an 

impersonation scam. Under this 

approach, liability would apply, for 

example, to a developer who knew or 

should have known that their AI 

software tool designed to generate 

deepfakes of IRS officials would be used 

by scammers to deceive people about 

whether they paid their taxes. Ensuring 

that the upstream actors best positioned 

to halt unlawful use of their tools are 

not shielded from liability will help 

align responsibility with capability and 

control. 

By unlocking civil penalties and 

redress, the final rule, along with the 

proposed supplemental provisions, will 

promote both more efficient 

enforcement and greater deterrence. In 

2020, the Supreme Court held that the 

Commission cannot rely on Section 

13(b) of the FTC Act to get money back 

to defrauded consumers,9 so 

rulemakings—while not a substitute for 

a legislative fix—can help ensure that 

lawbreakers do not profit from their 

lawbreaking and that wronged 

consumers can be made whole. 

This rule marks the agency’s first 

brand-new Section 18 rulemaking since 

1980. Although the authority to issue 

rules is clearly laid out in the FTC Act, 

bureaucratic red tape presented an 

obstacle to the agency’s exercise of this 

important statutory authority. Thanks to 

efforts initiated under Commissioner 

Slaughter’s leadership to align the 

procedural requirements for Section 18 

rulemaking with the FTC Act’s statutory 

text, Section 18 rulemakings can now 

proceed more efficiently.10 This effort 

took two years from proposal to final 

rule, finally putting lie to the old idea 

that this must be an impossibly long 

process. 

Many thanks to the FTC team for their 

swift work and dedication. This rule 

banning government and business 

impersonation will allow us to more 

vigorously and effectively protect 

Americans from fraudsters. And we are 

eager for public input on the 

supplemental NPRM that would extend 

this rule to cover impersonation of 

individuals. With the rapid rise of voice 

cloning fraud and other AI-based scams, 

additional protection for consumers 

seems especially critical. As these 

technologies enable more sophisticated 

and innovative forms of fraud, we will 

continue to ensure the Commission is 

activating all the tools Congress has 

given us and faithfully executing on our 

statutory mandate. 

[FR Doc. 2024–04335 Filed 2–29–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6750–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2022–0279; FRL–10675– 

02–R6] 

Air Plan Approval; Oklahoma; Updates 

to the State Implementation Plan 

Incorporation by Reference Provisions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Clean 

Air Act (CAA or the Act), the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

is approving revisions to the Oklahoma 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

submitted by the State of Oklahoma 

designee on December 17, 2021, and 

January 20, 2023. This action addresses 

the submittal of revisions to the 

Oklahoma SIP to update the 

incorporation by reference provision of 

Federal requirements under Oklahoma 

Administrative Code (OAC). 

DATES: This rule is effective April 1, 

2024. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R06–OAR–2022–0279. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the https://www.regulations.gov 

website. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., 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. Publicly available docket 

materials are available electronically 

through https://www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Adina Wiley, EPA Region 6 Office, Air 

Permits Section, 214–665–2115, 

wiley.adina@epa.gov. Please call or 

email the contact listed above if you 

need alternative access to material 

indexed but not provided in the docket. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
15032 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 42 / Friday, March 1, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

1Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act of 2005: A Legacy for 

Users, Public Law 109–59, 119 Stat. 1144, 1937 

(August 10, 2005) (‘‘SAFETEA’’) 

2 In ODEQ v. EPA, the D.C. Circuit held that 

under the CAA, a state has the authority to 

implement a SIP in non-reservation areas of Indian 

country in the state, where there has been no 

demonstration of Tribal jurisdiction. Under the D.C. 

Circuit’s decision, the CAA does not provide 

authority to states to implement SIPs in Indian 

reservations. ODEQ did not, however, substantively 

address the separate authority in Indian country 

provided specifically to Oklahoma under 

SAFETEA. That separate authority was not invoked 

until the State submitted its request under 

SAFETEA, and was not approved until EPA’s 

decision, described in this section, on October 1, 

2020. 

3EPA’s prior approvals relating to Oklahoma’s 

SIP frequently noted that the SIP was not approved 

to apply in areas of Indian country (consistent with 

the D.C. Circuit’s decision in ODEQ v. EPA) located 

in the state. See, e.g., 85 FR 20178, 20180 (April 10, 

2020). Such prior expressed limitations are 

superseded by the EPA’s approval of Oklahoma’s 

SAFETEA request. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ means the EPA. 

I. Background 

The background for this action is 

discussed in detail in our March 6, 

2023, proposal (88 FR 13755). In that 

document we proposed to approve 

revisions to the Oklahoma SIP that 

update the incorporation by reference 

dates for Federal requirements. We 

received one comment on our proposed 

action, addressed below. 

II. Response to Comments 

The commentor asserts that there is a 

potential inconsistency with the 

portions of our proposed rulemaking 

discussing the Impact on Areas of 

Indian Country and Environmental 

Justice Considerations. We address the 

comment below in two parts. 

Comment: In section III of our 

proposal (‘‘Impact on Areas of Indian 

Country’’) we said, ‘‘As requested by 

Oklahoma, the EPA’s approval under 

SAFETEA 1 does not include Indian 

country lands, including rights-of-way 

running through the same, that (1) 

qualify as Indian allotments, the Indian 

titles to which have not been 

extinguished, under 18 U.S.C. 1151(c).’’ 

The commentor cites the definition of 

‘‘Indian country’’ in Title 18, ‘‘(a) all 

land within the limits of any Indian 

reservation under the jurisdiction of the 

United States Government, 

notwithstanding the issuance of any 

patent, and, including rights-of-way 

running through the reservation, (b) all 

dependent Indian communities within 

the borders of the United States whether 

within the original or subsequently 

acquired territory thereof, and whether 

within or without the limits of a state, 

and (c) all Indian allotments, the Indian 

titles to which have not been 

extinguished, including rights-of-way 

running through the same.’’ The 

commentor offers their interpretation of 

this definition, stating that ‘‘this statute 

states that all Indian reservations and 

areas allocated for the Native American 

community are reserved for that 

community and under that community’s 

jurisdiction’’ and ties this interpretation 

to our proposed action, arguing that 

‘‘[t]he problem that arises in the 

proposed statute, is that it leaves the 

issue of air quality as a responsibility of 

Indian Country.’’ 

Response: Section III of our proposed 

rulemaking, Impact on Areas of Indian 

Country, provides the regulatory history 

of Oklahoma’s request and the EPA’s 

approval to administer the State’s 

environmental regulatory programs in 

certain areas of Indian Country pursuant 

to SAFETEA. The EPA’s October 1, 

2020, approval of the Oklahoma 

SAFETEA request gives the State—not 

the Tribes—the authority to administer 

the Oklahoma SIP within certain areas 

of Indian country. The State of 

Oklahoma is responsible for protecting 

air quality in these areas. 

Comment: The commentor states their 

concern that ‘‘despite Indian Country 

having authority over their land, they 

aren’t given a sufficient amount of 

resources to combat poor air quality, 

leaving them to their own defenses. 

Subsequently, leaving Tribes to deal 

with poor air quality and not giving 

them a chance to improve it. A general 

recommendation I offer is to (a) add 

clarity to the cities, and Tribes, that are 

excluded from Indian Country and will 

implement this statute, (b) instead of 

trying to take control of Indian Country 

or leaving the complete authority to 

Indian Country, work with the Tribes 

and create statutes with their opinions 

and ideas in mind and have a shared 

statute that everyone benefits from.’’ 

Response: As a result of the EPA’s 

SAFETEA approval, the State of 

Oklahoma is responsible for protecting 

air quality in certain areas of Indian 

Country and concerns about resources 

allocated to Tribes for this purpose are 

not relevant to this rulemaking. The 

EPA notes, however, that several Tribal 

governments within the State of 

Oklahoma have Tribal air programs that 

are supported and encouraged by the 

EPA. 

III. Impact on Areas of Indian Country 

Following the U.S. Supreme Court 

decision in McGirt v Oklahoma, 140 S. 

Ct. 2452 (2020), the Governor of the 

State of Oklahoma requested approval 

under Section 10211(a) of the Safe, 

Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act of 2005: A 

Legacy for Users, Public Law 109–59, 

119 Stat. 1144, 1937 (August 10, 2005) 

(‘‘SAFETEA’’), to administer in certain 

areas of Indian country (as defined at 18 

U.S.C. 1151) the State’s environmental 

regulatory programs that were 

previously approved by the EPA for 

areas outside of Indian country. The 

State’s request excluded certain areas of 

Indian country further described below. 

In addition, the State only sought 

approval to the extent that such 

approval is necessary for the State to 

administer a program in light of 

Oklahoma Dept. of Environmental 

Quality v. EPA, 740 F.3d 185 (D.C. Cir. 

2014).2

On October 1, 2020, the EPA 

approved Oklahoma’s SAFETEA request 

to administer all the State’s EPAapproved environmental regulatory 

programs, including the Oklahoma SIP, 

in the requested areas of Indian country. 

As requested by Oklahoma, the EPA’s 

approval under SAFETEA does not 

include Indian country lands, including 

rights-of-way running through the same, 

that: (1) qualify as Indian allotments, the 

Indian titles to which have not been 

extinguished, under 18 U.S.C. 1151(c); 

(2) are held in trust by the United States 

on behalf of an individual Indian or 

Tribe; or (3) are owned in fee by a Tribe, 

if the Tribe (a) acquired that fee title to 

such land, or an area that included such 

land, in accordance with a treaty with 

the United States to which such Tribe 

was a party, and (b) never allotted the 

land to a member or citizen of the Tribe 

(collectively ‘‘excluded Indian country 

lands’’). 

The EPA’s approval under SAFETEA 

expressly provided that to the extent 

EPA’s prior approvals of Oklahoma’s 

environmental programs excluded 

Indian country, any such exclusions are 

superseded for the geographic areas of 

Indian country covered by the EPA’s 

approval of Oklahoma’s SAFETEA 

request.3 The approval also provided 

that future revisions or amendments to 

Oklahoma’s approved environmental 

regulatory programs would extend to 

the covered areas of Indian country 

(without any further need for additional 

requests under SAFETEA). 

The EPA is approving updates to the 

Oklahoma SIP incorporation by 

reference provisions to maintain 

consistency with Federal requirements, 

which will apply statewide in 

Oklahoma. Consistent with the D.C. 

Circuit’s decision in ODEQ v. EPA and 

with the EPA’s October 1, 2020, 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 42 / Friday, March 1, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 15033 

4 In accordance with Executive Order 13990, EPA 

is currently reviewing our October 1, 2020 

SAFETEA approval and expects to engage in further 

discussions with Tribal governments and the State 

of Oklahoma as part of this review. EPA also notes 

that the October 1, 2020 approval is the subject of 

a pending challenge in Federal court. (Pawnee v 

Regan, No. 20–9635 (10th Cir.)). Pending 

completion of EPA’s review, EPA is proceeding 

with this proposed action in accordance with the 

October 1, 2020 approval. EPA’s final action on the 

approved revisions to the Oklahoma SIP that 

include revisions to OAC 252:100–2–3 and 

Appendix Q addresses the scope of the state’s 

program with respect to Indian country. Although 

EPA is approving these revisions before our review 

of the SAFETEA approval is complete, EPA may 

make further changes to the approval of Oklahoma’s 

program to reflect the outcome of the SAFETEA 

review. 

SAFETEA approval, our approval of 

these SIP revisions will apply to all 

Indian country within the State of 

Oklahoma, other than the excluded 

Indian country lands, as described 

above. Because—per the State’s request 

under SAFETEA—EPA’s October 1, 

2020, approval does not displace any 

SIP authority previously exercised by 

the State under the CAA as interpreted 

in ODEQ v. EPA, the SIP will also apply 

to any Indian allotments or dependent 

Indian communities located outside of 

an Indian reservation over which there 

has been no demonstration of Tribal 

authority.4

IV. Final Action 

We are approving under section 110 

of the CAA, the December 17, 2021, and 

January 20, 2023, revisions to the 

Oklahoma SIP to update the 

incorporation by reference dates for 

Federal requirements. These revisions 

were developed in accordance with the 

CAA and the EPA’s regulations, policy, 

and guidance for SIP development. 

The EPA is approving the following 

revisions to the Oklahoma SIP adopted 

on June 11, 2021, effective September 

15, 2021, and submitted to the EPA on 

December 17, 2021: 

• Revisions to OAC 252:100–2–3, 

Incorporation by Reference, 

• Repeal of OAC 252:100, Appendix 

Q, and 

• Adoption of new OAC 252:100, 

Appendix Q. 

The EPA approves the following 

revisions to the Oklahoma SIP adopted 

on June 21, 2022, effective September 

15, 2022, and submitted to the EPA on 

January 30, 2023: 

• Revisions to OAC 252:100–2–3, 

Incorporation by Reference, 

• Repeal of OAC 252:100. Appendix 

Q, and 

• Adoption of new OAC 252:100, 

Appendix Q. 

V. Environmental Justice Consideration 

The EPA reviewed demographic data 

and provided the results in our March 

6, 2023, proposal. See 88 FR 13755, 

13756–13757. 

VI. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rule, the EPA is finalizing 

regulatory text that includes 

incorporation by reference. In 

accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 

51.5, the EPA is finalizing the 

incorporation by reference of the 

revisions to the Oklahoma regulations 

that update Oklahoma’s incorporation 

by reference of certain Federal 

regulations in 40 CFR parts 50, 51, and 

98 identified and discussed in Section 

IV of this preamble, Final Action. The 

EPA has made, and will continue to 

make, these materials generally 

available through www.regulations.gov 

(please contact the person identified in 

the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section of this preamble for more 

information). Therefore, these materials 

have been approved by EPA for 

inclusion in the SIP, have been 

incorporated by reference by EPA into 

that plan, are fully federally enforceable 

under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA 

as of the effective date of the final 

rulemaking of EPA’s approval, and will 

be incorporated in the next update to 

the SIP compilation. 

VII. 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 Clean Air Act and 

applicable Federal regulations. 42 

U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, 

in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this 

action merely approves state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993) and 14094 (88 FR 

21879, April 11, 2023); 

• 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 subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) 

because it approves a state program; 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); and 

• 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. 

Executive Order 12898 (Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994) directs Federal 

agencies to identify and address 

‘‘disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects’’ 

of their actions on minority populations 

and low-income populations to the 

greatest extent practicable and 

permitted by law. EPA defines 

environmental justice (EJ) as ‘‘the fair 

treatment and meaningful involvement 

of all people regardless of race, color, 

national origin, or income with respect 

to the development, implementation, 

and enforcement of environmental laws, 

regulations, and policies.’’ EPA further 

defines the term fair treatment to mean 

that ‘‘no group of people should bear a 

disproportionate burden of 

environmental harms and risks, 

including those resulting from the 

negative environmental consequences of 

industrial, governmental, and 

commercial operations or programs and 

policies.’’ 

The state air agency did not evaluate 

environmental justice considerations as 

part of its SIP submittal; the CAA and 

applicable implementing regulations 

neither prohibit nor require such an 

evaluation. The EPA performed an 

environmental justice analysis, as is 

described above in the section titled, 

‘‘Environmental Justice 

Considerations.’’ The analysis was done 

for the purpose of providing additional 

context and information about this 

rulemaking to the public, not as a basis 

of the action. Due to the nature of the 

action being taken here, this action is 

expected to have a neutral to positive 

impact on the air quality of the affected 

area. In addition, there is no information 

in the record upon which this decision 

is based inconsistent with the stated 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
15034 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 42 / Friday, March 1, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

goal of E.O. 12898 of achieving 

environmental justice for people of 

color, low-income populations, and 

Indigenous peoples. 

This final approval of revisions to the 

Oklahoma SIP that update the 

incorporation by reference dates for 

Federal requirements as discussed more 

fully elsewhere in this document will 

apply to certain areas of Indian country 

as discussed in the preamble, and 

therefore has tribal implications as 

specified in E.O. 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000). However, this 

action will neither impose substantial 

direct compliance costs on federally 

recognized Tribal governments, nor 

preempt Tribal law. This action will not 

impose substantial direct compliance 

costs on federally recognized Tribal 

governments because no actions will be 

required of Tribal governments. This 

action will also not preempt Tribal law 

as no Oklahoma tribe implements a 

regulatory program under the CAA, and 

thus does not have applicable or related 

Tribal laws. Consistent with the EPA 

Policy on Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribes (May 4, 

2011), the EPA has engaged with Tribal 

governments that may be affected by 

this action and provided information 

about this action. 

This action is subject to the 

Congressional Review Act, and the EPA 

will submit a rule report to each House 

of the Congress and to the Comptroller 

General of the United States. This action 

is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 

U.S.C. 804(2). 

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 appropriate 

circuit by April 30, 2024. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: February 22, 2024. 

Earthea Nance, 

Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the Environmental Protection 

Agency amends 40 CFR part 52 as 

follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart LL—Oklahoma 

■ 2. In § 52.1920, in paragraph (c), the 

table titled ‘‘EPA Approved Oklahoma 

Regulations’’ is amended by revising the 

entries for ‘‘252:100–2–3’’ and ‘‘252:100, 

Appendix Q’’ to read as follows: 

§ 52.1920 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

EPA APPROVED OKLAHOMA REGULATIONS

State citation Title/subject 

State 

effective 

date 

EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

Chapter 100 (OAC 252:100). AIR POLLUTION CONTROL 

*******

Subchapter 2. Incorporation by Reference 

*******

252:100–2–3 ........................... Incorporation by reference ..... 9/15/2022 3/1/2024, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

* * * * * * * 

Appendices for OAC 252: Chapter 100 

*******

252:100, Appendix Q .............. Incorporation by reference ..... 9/15/2022 3/21/2024, [Insert Federal 

Register citation].

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2024–04103 Filed 2–29–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1