38624 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 138 / Thursday, July 22, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

relationship between the national 

government and the States, or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

Executive Order 13175, Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This proposed rule does not have 

tribal implications warranting the 

application of E.O. 13175. It does not 

have substantial direct effects on one or 

more Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal government and Indian tribes. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

This action does not impose a new 

collection of information requirement 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3521). 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Administrator of DEA, in 

accordance with the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, has 

reviewed this proposed rule and, by 

approving it, certifies that it will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

DEA proposes placing the substance 

amineptine, including its isomers, salts, 

and salts of isomers, in schedule I of the 

CSA. This action is being taken to 

enable the United States to meet its 

obligations under the 1971 Convention. 

If finalized, this action would impose 

the regulatory controls and 

administrative, civil, and/or criminal 

sanctions applicable to schedule I 

controlled substances on persons who 

handle (manufacture, distribute, reverse 

distribute, import, export, engage in 

research, conduct instructional 

activities or chemical analysis with, or 

possess), or propose to handle, 

amineptine. 

According to HHS, amineptine has a 

high potential for abuse, has no 

currently accepted medical use in 

treatment in the United States, and lacks 

accepted safety for use under medical 

supervision. DEA’s research confirms 

that there is no commercial market for 

amineptine in the United States. 

Additionally, queries of DEA’s STRIDE/ 

STARLiMS and the NFLIS databases on 

November 17, 2020, did not generate 

any reports of amineptine, suggesting 

that it is not trafficked in the United 

States. Therefore, DEA estimates that no 

United States entity currently handles 

amineptine and does not expect any 

United States entity to handle 

amineptine in the foreseeable future. 

DEA concludes that no United States 

entity would be affected by this rule, if 

finalized. As such, the proposed rule 

will not have a significant effect on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

On the basis of information contained 

in the ‘‘Regulatory Flexibility Act’’ 

section above, DEA has determined 

pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act (UMRA) of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 

1501 et seq.) that this action would not 

result in any Federal mandate that may 

result ‘‘in the expenditure by State, 

local, and tribal governments, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector, of 

$100,000,000 or more (adjusted 

annually for inflation) in any 1 year 

* * *.’’ Therefore, neither a Small 

Government Agency Plan nor any other 

action is required under provisions of 

the UMRA of 1995. 

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 1308 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Drug traffic control, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

For the reasons set out above, 21 CFR 

part 1308 is proposed to be amended to 

read as follows: 

PART 1308—SCHEDULES OF 

CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES 

■ 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR 

part 1308 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 811, 812, 871(b), 

956(b), unless otherwise noted. 

■ 2. Amend § 1308.11 by re-designating 

paragraphs (f)(1) through (f)(9) as 

paragraphs (f)(2) through (f)(10), and 

adding a new paragraph (f)(1) to read as 

follows: 

§ 1308.11 Schedule I. 

* * * * * 

(f) * * * 

(1) Amineptine (7-[(10,11-dihydro-5H-dibenzo[a,d]cyclohepten-5-yl)amino]heptanoic acid) ...................................................... 1219 

* * * * * 

Anne Milgram, 

Administrator. 

[FR Doc. 2021–15331 Filed 7–21–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–09–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

28 CFR Part 16 

[CPCLO Order No. 003–2021] 

Privacy Act of 1974; Implementation 

AGENCY: United States Department of 

Justice. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: On July 14, 2021 in the 

publication of the Federal Register at 86 

FR 37188, the Department of Justice 

(Department or DOJ), has published a 

notice of a modified system of records 

that was retitled as, ‘‘Department of 

Justice Information Technology, 

Information System, and Network 

Activity and Access Records,’’ JUSTICE/ 

DOJ–002. In this notice of proposed 

rulemaking, DOJ proposes to exempt 

this system of records from certain 

provisions of the Privacy Act in order to 

avoid interference with the efforts of 

DOJ and others to prevent the 

unauthorized access, use, disclosure, 

disruption, modification, or destruction 

of DOJ information and information 

systems, and to protect information on 

DOJ classified networks. For the reasons 

provided below, the Department 

proposes to amend its Privacy Act 

regulations by establishing an 

exemption for records in this system 

from certain provisions of the Privacy 

Act. Public comment is invited. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

August 23, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. When submitting 

comments electronically, you must 

include the CPCLO Order No. in the 

subject box. Please note that the 

Department is requesting that electronic 

comments be submitted before midnight 

Eastern Standard Time on the day the 

comment period closes because http://

www.regulations.gov terminates the 

public’s ability to submit comments at 

that time. Commenters in time zones 

other than Eastern Standard Time may 

want to consider this so that their 

electronic comments are received. 

• Mail: United States Department of 

Justice, Office of Privacy and Civil 

Liberties, ATTN: Privacy Analyst, Office 

of Privacy and Civil Liberties, 145 N St. 

NE, Suite 8W.300, Washington, DC 

20530. All comments sent via regular or 

express mail will be considered timely 

if postmarked on the day the comment 

period closes. To ensure proper 

handling, please reference the CPCLO 

Order No. in your correspondence. 

Posting of Public Comments: 

Interested persons are invited to 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 138 / Thursday, July 22, 2021 / Proposed Rules 38625 

participate in this rulemaking by 

submitting written data, views, or 

arguments on all aspects of this rule by 

one of the methods and by the deadline 

stated above. All comments must be 

submitted in English, or accompanied 

by an English translation. The 

Department also invites comments that 

relate to the economic, environmental, 

or federalism effects that might result 

from this rule. Comments that will 

provide the most assistance to the 

Department in developing these 

procedures will reference a specific 

portion of the rule, explain the reason 

for any recommended change, and 

include data, information, or authority 

that support such recommended change. 

Please note that all comments 

received are considered part of the 

public record and made available for 

public inspection at 

www.regulations.gov. Such information 

includes personally identifying 

information (PII) (such as your name, 

address, etc.). Interested persons are not 

required to submit their PII in order to 

comment on this rule. However, any PII 

that is submitted is subject to being 

posted to the publicly-accessible 

www.regulations.gov site without 

redaction. 

Confidential business information 

clearly identified in the first paragraph 

of the comment as such will not be 

placed in the public docket file. 

The Department may withhold from 

public viewing information provided in 

comments that they determine may 

impact the privacy of an individual or 

is offensive. For additional information, 

please read the Privacy Act notice that 

is available via the link in the footer of 

http://www.regulations.gov. To inspect 

the agency’s public docket file in 

person, you must make an appointment 

with the agency. Please see the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

paragraph, below, for agency contact 

information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nickolous Ward, DOJ Chief Information 

Security Officer, (202) 514–3101, 145 N 

Street NE, Washington, DC 20530. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 

accordance with the Federal 

Information Security Modernization Act 

of 2014, among other authorities, DOJ is 

responsible for complying with 

information security policies and 

procedures requiring information 

security protections commensurate with 

the risk and magnitude of harm 

resulting from the unauthorized access, 

use, disclosure, disruption, 

modification, or destruction of DOJ 

information and information systems. 

See, e.g., 44 U.S.C. 3554 (2018). 

Consistent with these requirements, DOJ 

must ensure that it maintains accurate 

audit and activity records of the 

observable occurrences on its 

information systems and networks (also 

referred to as ‘‘events’’) that are 

significant and relevant to the security 

of DOJ information and information 

systems. These audit and activity 

records may include, but are not limited 

to, information that establishes what 

type of event occurred, when the event 

occurred, where the event occurred, the 

source of the event, the outcome of the 

event, and the identity of any 

individuals or subjects associated with 

the event. Additionally, monitored 

events—whether detected utilizing 

information systems maintaining audit 

and activity records, reported to the 

Department by information system 

users, or reported to the Department by 

the cybersecurity research community 

and members of the general public 

conducting good faith vulnerability 

discovery activities—may constitute 

occurrences that (1) actually or 

imminently jeopardize, without lawful 

authority, the integrity, confidentiality, 

or availability of information or an 

information system; or (2) constitute a 

violation or imminent threat of violation 

of law, security policies, security 

procedures, or acceptable use policies. 

The Department has developed a formal 

process to track and document these 

reported ‘‘incidents,’’ which may, in 

limited circumstances, include records 

of individuals reporting, or otherwise 

associated with, an actual or suspected 

event or incident. 

The DOJ notice that published in the 

July 14, 2021 issue of the Federal 

Register, at 86 FR 37188 has proposed 

modifications to a Department-wide 

system of records retitled, ‘‘Department 

of Justice Information Technology, 

Information System, and Network 

Activity and Access Records,’’ JUSTICE/ 

DOJ–002. This system covers the 

Department’s tracking of all DOJ 

information technology, DOJ 

information system, and DOJ network 

activity and access by users. These 

records assist Department information 

security professionals in protecting DOJ 

information, ensuring the secure 

operation of DOJ information systems, 

and tracking and documenting incidents 

reported to the agency. The revisions to 

this notice reflect changes in 

technology, including the increased 

ability of the Department to link 

individuals to information technology, 

information system, or network activity, 

and to better describe the Department’s 

records linking individuals to reported 

cybersecurity incidents or their access 

to certain information technologies, 

information systems, and networks 

through the internet or other authorized 

connections. 

In this rulemaking, the Department 

proposes to exempt JUSTICE/DOJ–002 

from certain provisions of the Privacy 

Act in order to avoid interference with 

the responsibilities of the Department to 

prevent the unauthorized access, use, 

disclosure, disruption, modification, or 

destruction of DOJ information and 

information systems. Additionally, the 

Department proposes to exempt 

JUSTICE/DOJ–002 from certain 

provisions of the Privacy Act to protect 

activity and audit log records on DOJ 

classified networks. 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563— 

Regulatory Review 

In accordance with 552a(k), this 

proposed action is subject to formal 

rulemaking procedures by giving 

interested persons an opportunity to 

participate in the rulemaking process 

‘‘through submission of written data, 

views, or arguments,’’ pursuant to 5 

U.S.C. 553. This proposed rule will 

promulgate certain Privacy Act 

exemptions for a DOJ system of records 

titled, ‘‘Department of Justice 

Information Technology, Information 

System, and Network Activity and 

Access Records,’’ JUSTICE/DOJ–002. 

This proposed rule does not raise novel 

legal or policy issues, nor does it 

adversely affect the economy, the 

budgetary impact of entitlements, 

grants, user fees, loan programs, or the 

rights and obligations of recipients 

thereof in a material way. The 

Department of Justice has determined 

that this rule is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under Executive 

Order 12866, section 3(f), and 

accordingly this rule has not been 

reviewed by the Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs within the Office 

of Management and Budget pursuant to 

Executive Order 12866. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

This proposed rule will only impact 

Privacy Act-protected records, which 

are personal and generally do not apply 

to an individual’s entrepreneurial 

capacity, subject to limited exceptions. 

Accordingly, the Chief Privacy and Civil 

Liberties Officer, in accordance with the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 

605(b)), has reviewed this regulation 

and by approving it certifies that this 

regulation will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
38626 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 138 / Thursday, July 22, 2021 / Proposed Rules 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (Subtitle E— 

Congressional Review Act) 

The Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) of 

1996, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., requires the 

Department to comply with small entity 

requests for information and advice 

about compliance with statutes and 

regulations within the Department’s 

jurisdiction. Any small entity that has a 

question regarding this document may 

contact the person listed in FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT paragraph, above. 

Persons can obtain further information 

regarding SBREFA on the Small 

Business Administration’s web page at 

https://www.sba.gov/advocacy. This 

proposed rule is not a major rule as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804 of the 

Congressional Review Act. 

Executive Order 13132—Federalism 

This proposed rule will not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. Therefore, in 

accordance with Executive Order 13132, 

it is determined that this rule does not 

have sufficient federalism implications 

to warrant the preparation of a 

Federalism Assessment. 

Executive Order 12988—Civil Justice 

Reform 

This proposed regulation meets the 

applicable standards set forth in 

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

Order 12988 to eliminate drafting errors 

and ambiguity, minimize litigation, 

provide a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct, and promote 

simplification and burden reduction. 

Executive Order 13175—Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This proposed rule will have no 

implications for Indian Tribal 

governments. More specifically, it does 

not have substantial direct effects on 

one or more Indian tribes, on the 

relationship between the Federal 

government and Indian tribes, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

government and Indian tribes. 

Therefore, the consultation 

requirements of Executive Order 13175 

do not apply. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

This proposed rule will not result in 

the expenditure by State, local and 

tribal governments, in the aggregate, or 

by the private sector, of $100,000,000, as 

adjusted for inflation, or more in any 

one year, and it will not significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. 

Therefore, no actions were deemed 

necessary under the provisions of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507(d), requires the 

Department to consider the impact of 

paperwork and other information 

collection burdens imposed on the 

public. There are no current or new 

information collection requirements 

associated with this proposed rule. 

List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 16 

Administrative Practices and 

Procedures, Courts, Freedom of 

Information, and the Privacy Act. 

Pursuant to the authority vested in the 

Attorney General by 5 U.S.C. 552a and 

delegated to me by Attorney General 

Order 2940–2008, the Department of 

Justice proposes to amend 28 CFR part 

16 as follows: 

PART 16—PRODUCTION OR 

DISCLOSURE OF MATERIAL OR 

INFORMATION 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 16 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301, 552, 552a, 553; 28 

U.S.C. 509, 510, 534; 31 U.S.C. 3717. 

Subpart E—Exemption of Records 

Systems Under the Privacy Act 

■ 2. Add § 16.138 to subpart E to read 

as follows: 

§ 16.138 Exemption of the Department of 

Justice, Computer Systems Activity and 

Access Records, JUSTICE/DOJ–002. 

(a) The Department of Justice 

Information Technology, Information 

System, and Network Activity and 

Access Records (JUSTICE/DOJ–002) 

system of records is exempted from 

subsections (c)(3); (d); (e)(1), (e)(4)(G), 

(H), and (I); and (f) of the Privacy Act 

of 1974, as amended. These exemptions 

apply only to the extent that 

information in this system is subject to 

exemption pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

552a(k)(1) or (k)(2). The applicable 

exemption may be waived by the DOJ in 

its sole discretion where DOJ 

determines compliance with the 

exempted provisions of the Act would 

not interfere with or adversely affect the 

purpose of this system to ensure that the 

Department can track information 

system access and implement 

information security protections 

commensurate with the risk and 

magnitude of harm that could result 

from the unauthorized access, use, 

disclosure, disruption, modification, or 

destruction of DOJ information and DOJ 

information systems. 

(b) Exemptions from the particular 

subsections are justified for the 

following reasons: 

(1) From subsection (c)(3), the 

requirement that an accounting be made 

available to the named subject of a 

record, because this system is exempt 

from the access provisions of subsection 

(d). Also, because making available to a 

record subject the accounting of 

disclosures of records concerning the 

subject would specifically reveal 

investigative interests in the records by 

the DOJ or other entities that are 

recipients of the disclosures. Revealing 

this information could compromise 

sensitive information classified in the 

interest of national security, or interfere 

with the overall law enforcement 

process by revealing a pending sensitive 

cybersecurity investigation. Revealing 

this information could also permit the 

record subject to obtain valuable insight 

concerning the information obtained 

during any investigation and to take 

measures to impede the investigation, 

e.g., destroy evidence or alter 

techniques to evade discovery. 

(2) From subsection (d)(1), (2), (3) and 

(4), (e)(4)(G) and (H), and (f) because 

these provisions concern individual 

access to and amendment of certain law 

enforcement and classified records, 

compliance of which could alert the 

subject of an authorized law 

enforcement activity about that 

particular activity and the interest of the 

DOJ and/or other law enforcement or 

intelligence agencies. Providing access 

could compromise information 

classified to protect national security, or 

reveal sensitive cybersecurity 

investigative techniques; provide 

information that would allow a subject 

to avoid detection; or constitute a 

potential danger to the health or safety 

of law enforcement personnel or 

confidential sources. 

(3) From subsection (e)(1) because it 

is not always possible to know in 

advance what information is relevant 

and necessary for law enforcement and 

intelligence purposes. The relevance 

and utility of certain information that 

may have a nexus to cybersecurity 

threats may not always be fully evident 

until and unless it is vetted and 

matched with other information 

necessarily and lawfully maintained by 

the DOJ or other entities. 

(4) From subsection (e)(4)(I), to the 

extent that this subsection is interpreted 

to require more detail regarding the 

record sources in this system than has 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 138 / Thursday, July 22, 2021 / Proposed Rules 38627 

been published in the Federal Register. 

Should the subsection be so interpreted, 

exemption from this provision is 

necessary to protect the sources of law 

enforcement and intelligence 

information. Further, greater specificity 

of sources of properly classified records 

could compromise national security. 

Dated: July 1, 2021. 

Peter A. Winn, 

Acting Chief Privacy and Civil Liberties 

Officer, United States Department of Justice. 

[FR Doc. 2021–14987 Filed 7–21–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–NW–P 

FEDERAL MEDIATION AND 

CONCILIATION SERVICE 

29 CFR 1402 

RIN 3076–AA16 

Notice to Mediation Agency 

AGENCY: Federal Mediation and 

Conciliation Service (FMCS). 

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: The Federal Mediation and 

Conciliation Service (FMCS), hereby 

publishes notice of proposed 

rulemaking to solicit comments on the 

following modification to the 

submission method of information 

collection request, Notice to Mediation 

Agency, (Agency Form F–7). FMCS 

proposes to change its method of 

submission from mail-in to electronic 

submission. In addition, FMCS proposes 

to remove the language from the Form 

F–7. 

DATES: Comments must be submitted on 

or before August 23, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

through one of the following methods: 

• Email: Arthur Pearlstein, 

apearlstein@fmcs.gov. 

• Mail: Arthur Pearlstein, HQ Office 

of Arbitration, One Independence 

Square, 250 E St. SW, Washington, DC 

20427. Please note that as of September 

11, 2020, the FMCS office is not open 

for visitors and mail is not checked 

daily. Therefore, we encourage emailed 

inquiries. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Arthur Pearlstein, Director, Arbitration, 

Notice Processing, Shared Neutrals, 

apearlstein@fmcs.gov, 202–606–8103. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

This modification will change the 

submission process of information 

collection request, Notice to Mediation 

Agency, (Agency Form F–7) from mailin to electronic submission. This 

revision is necessary to increase 

efficiency of FMCS both by allowing 

FMCS to receive Agency Form F–7’s 

more quickly, but also to reduce 

processing time. This will allow the 

Service to provide its services to the 

parties more quickly. This revision will 

also remove the language which 

includes the verbiage of the Form-F7, to 

allow for FMCS to modify the form, if 

necessary, without necessitating 

additional rule change. 

II. Authority for This Rulemaking 

FMCS’ authority to issue rules is 

found in 29 U.S.C. 172 of Taft Harley 

Act of 1947. This regulation is within 

the scope of that authority. 

III. Comments Invited 

FMCS solicits comments to 

(i) Evaluate whether the proposed 

change of submission from mail-in to 

electronic is necessary, including 

whether the change will have practical 

utility. 

(ii) Enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information collection 

submission process. 

(iii) Minimize the burden of the 

collections of information on those who 

are to respond, including the use of 

appropriate automated, electronic 

collection technologies or other forms of 

information technology. 

IV. Discussion of Proposed 

Amendments Section by Section 

The following describes the specific 

changes proposed by this rulemaking: 

• FMCS revises the language ‘‘shall 

be in writing.’’ to ‘‘electronically via a 

platform provided by FMCS. If 

electronic submission creates an undue 

hardship, the filer may contact the 

FMCS Notice Processing office to 

explain the circumstances and receive 

assistance.’’ 

• FMCS revises the language ‘‘The 

following Form F–7, for use by the 

parties in filing a notice of dispute, has 

been prepared by the Service:’’ to ‘‘The 

Form F–7, for use by the parties in filing 

a notice of dispute, has been prepared 

by the Service.’’ 

• FMCS removes the form titled 

‘‘Notice to Mediation Agencies’’. 

List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1402 

Information Collection Requests. 

In consideration of the foregoing, 

FMCS proposed to amend 29 CFR 

1402.1 as follows: 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 1402 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: Sec. 202, 61 Stat. 153, sec. 3, 80 

Stat. 250, sec. 203, 61 Stat. 153; 5 U.S.C. 552, 

29 U.S.C. 172, 173. 

■ 2. Revise § 1402.1 to read as follows: 

§ 1402.1 Notice of Dispute. 

The notice of dispute filed with the 

Federal Mediation and Conciliation 

Service pursuant to the provisions of 

section 8(d)(3), of the LaborManagement Relations Act, 1947, as 

amended, shall be submitted 

electronically via a platform provided 

by FMCS. If electronic submission 

creates an undue hardship, the filer may 

contact the FMCS Notice Processing 

office to explain the circumstances and 

receive assistance. The Form F–7, for 

use by the parties in filing a notice of 

dispute, has been prepared by the 

Service. 

Sarah Cudahy, 

General Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 2021–14929 Filed 7–21–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2020–0437; FRL–8698–01– 

R6] 

Air Plan Approval; Oklahoma; Volatile 

Organic Compound Emissions in 

Nonattainment Areas and Former 

Nonattainment Areas 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Clean 

Air Act (CAA or the Act), the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

is proposing to approve revisions to the 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) for 

Oklahoma submitted by the State of 

Oklahoma designee with a letter dated 

May 7, 2020. The submittal covers 

updates to the Oklahoma SIP, as 

contained in the state’s 2019 annual SIP 

update. Specifically, this action 

addresses revisions to Oklahoma 

Administrative Code (OAC), Emission of 

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) in 

Nonattainment Areas and Former 

Nonattainment Areas. There are two 

Oklahoma counties affected by this 

action: Tulsa County and Oklahoma 

County. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before August 23, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket No. EPA–R6–OAR– 

2020–0437, at https://

www.regulations.gov or via email to 

fuerst.sherry@epa.gov. Follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Once submitted, comments 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1