[Federal Register: October 7, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 194)]
[Notices]
[Page 58770-58771]
[DOCID:fr07oc05-146]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-52550; File No. SR-NYSE-2005-64]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change to Add Rules Regarding Time
Tracking Requirements of Specialists and Specialist Organizations to
Its Minor Rule Violation Plan

October 3, 2005.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on September 22, 2005, the New York Stock Exchange, Inc. (``NYSE'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Rule 476A in order to include
NYSE Rule 103.12, which relates to time tracking requirements of
specialists and specialist organizations, in its Minor Rule Violation
Plan. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's Internet Web site (http://www.nyse.com), at the Exchange's

principal office, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    On August 12, 2005, the Exchange filed with the Commission a
proposed rule change relating to NYSE Rule 103.12,\3\ which requires
specialists and specialist organizations to record and report the
actual time individuals spend working as a specialist or clerk while on
the trading floor of the Exchange. NYSE Rule 103.12 requires
specialists and specialist member organizations to make and keep, in
the regular course of business, records of the times that each of the
member organization's specialists and clerks work in such capacities on
the floor. The specialists and specialist member organizations must be
able to provide such records to the Exchange within the time frame and
in a format determined by the Exchange. In addition, NYSE Rule 103.12
requires specialists and clerks to log in to the Exchange's IDTrack
system and register their presence with respect to specialty stocks in
which they are working. The IDTrack system provides reports and
information pertaining to specialist and clerk activity to the
Exchange's Division of Market Surveillance and to specialist firms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 52251 (August 12,
2005), 70 FR 48790 (August 19, 2005) (SR-NYSE-2005-47).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NYSE Rule 103.12 allows the Exchange to more accurately track the
identity of specialists and their clerks and the times when each
specialist and clerk act in such capacities while on the floor. This
proposed rule change seeks to add NYSE Rule 103.12 to NYSE Rule 476A's
Supplementary Material, List of Exchange Rule Violations and Fines
Applicable Thereto Pursuant to Rule 476A, as an enforcement tool.
    NYSE Rule 476A provides that the Exchange may impose a fine, not to
exceed $5,000, on any member, member organization, allied member,
approved person, or registered or non-registered employee of a member
or member organization for a minor violation of certain specified
Exchange rules. NYSE Rule 476A's procedures for the imposition of fines
are designed to provide meaningful sanctions for certain rule
violations when the initiation of a formal disciplinary procedure under
NYSE Rule 476 would be more costly and time consuming than would be
warranted given the minor nature of the violation or when the violation
calls for a stronger response than an admonition letter. The Exchange
believes that

specialists and their clerks may at times fail to adhere to the record
keeping requirements of NYSE Rule 103.12 in a manner that may be
appropriate to be addressed with formal discipline (as provided under
NYSE Rule 476) or informal discipline (such as a fine as provided under
NYSE Rule 476A).
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\4\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\5\ in particular, in that it
would promote just and equitable principles of trade, facilitate
transactions in securities, remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system, and
protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants or Others

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve such proposed rule change, or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml.
); or     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include

File Number SR-NYSE-2005-64 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, Station Place, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549-9303.
    All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2005-64. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml
). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,

all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for inspection
and copying in the Commission's Public Reference Section, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549. Copies of such filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal offices of the Exchange.
All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission
does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2005-64
and should be submitted on or before October 28, 2005.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E5-5531 Filed 10-6-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 41 (Monday, March 2, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 12241-12244]
[FR Doc No: 2020-04230]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2019-0696; FRL-10005-71-Region 8]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality State Implementation
Plans; Provo, Utah Second 10-Year Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
State of Utah. On January 14, 2019, the Governor of Utah submitted to
the EPA a Clean Air Act (CAA) section 175A(b) second 10-year
maintenance plan for the Provo area for the carbon monoxide (CO)
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). This limited maintenance
plan (LMP) addresses maintenance of the CO NAAQS for a second 10-year
period beyond the original redesignation. This action is being taken
under sections 110 and 175A of the CAA.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before April 1, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2019-0696, to the Federal Rulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
www.regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Program,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street,
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. The 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, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.,
excluding federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amrita Singh, Air and Radiation
Division, EPA, Region 8, Mailcode 8ARD-QP, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver,
Colorado 80202-1129,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.

I. Background

    Under the CAA Amendments of 1990, the Provo area was designated as
nonattainment and classified as a ``moderate >12.7 ppm'' CO area (56 FR
56839, November 6, 1991). On April 1, 2004, the Governor of Utah
submitted to the EPA a request to redesignate the Provo CO
nonattainment area to attainment for the CO NAAQS. Along with this
request, the Governor submitted a CAA section 175A(a) maintenance plan
which demonstrated that the area would maintain the CO NAAQS for the
first 10 years following our approval of the redesignation request. We
approved the State's redesignation request and 10-year maintenance plan
on November 2, 2005 (70 FR 66264).
    Eight years after an area is redesignated to attainment, CAA
section 175A(b) requires the state to submit a subsequent maintenance
plan to the EPA, covering a second 10-year period.\1\ This second 10-
year maintenance plan must demonstrate continued compliance with the
NAAQS during this second 10-year period. To fulfill this requirement of
the CAA, the Governor of Utah submitted the second 10-year update of
the Provo CO maintenance plan (hereafter; ``revised Provo Maintenance
Plan'') to us on January 14, 2019. With this action, we are proposing
approval of the revised Provo Maintenance Plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In this case, the initial maintenance period extended
through 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 8-hour CO NAAQS--9.0 parts per million (ppm)--is attained when
such value is not exceeded more than once a year. 40 CFR 50.8(a)(1).
The Provo area has attained the 8-hour CO NAAQS from 1994 to the
present.\2\ In October 1995, the EPA issued guidance that provided CO
nonattainment areas the option of using a less rigorous ``limited
maintenance plan'' (LMP) option to demonstrate continued attainment and
maintenance of the CO NAAQS.\3\ According to this ``LMP Guidance,''
areas that can demonstrate design values (2nd highest max) at or below
7.65 ppm (85% of exceedance levels of the 8-hour CO NAAQS) for eight
consecutive quarters qualify to use an LMP. For the revised Provo
Maintenance Plan, the State used the LMP option to demonstrate
continued maintenance of the CO NAAQS in the Provo area. We have
determined that the Provo area qualifies for the LMP option because the
maximum design value for the most recent eight consecutive quarters
with certified data at the time the State adopted the plan (years 2016
and 2017) was 1.6 ppm.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In a direct final rulemaking published September 20, 2002,
the EPA determined that the Provo area had attained the CO NAAQS
from 1994 through 2001. (67 FR 59165). The measures taken by the
State to achieve attainment of the CO NAAQS are also detailed in
this rulemaking action.
    \3\ Memorandum ``Limited Maintenance Plan Option for
Nonclassifiable CO Nonattainment Areas'' from Joseph W. Paisie,
Group Leader, EPA Integrated Policy and Strategies Group, to Air
Branch Chiefs, October 6, 1995.
    \4\ See Table 4 below. Additionally, according to the LMP
guidance, an area using the LMP option must continue to have a
design value ``at or below 7.65 ppm until the time of final EPA
action on the redesignation.'' Table 4, below, demonstrates that the
area meets this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. The EPA's Evaluation of the Provo Second 10-Year CO Maintenance
Plan

    The following are the key elements of an LMP for CO: Emission
Inventory, Maintenance Demonstration, Monitoring Network/Verification
of Continued Attainment, Contingency Plan, and Conformity
Determinations. Below, we describe our evaluation of each of these
elements as it pertains to the revised Provo Maintenance Plan.

A. Emission Inventory

    The revised Provo Maintenance Plan contains an emissions inventory
for 2016. The emission inventory is a list, by source category, of the
tons per day

of CO directly emitted in Utah County (in which the Provo CO
maintenance area is located) on a typical winter day in 2016.\5\ This
inventory is shown in Table 1, below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Violations of the CO NAAQS are most likely to occur on
winter weekdays.

  Table 1--Utah County Emissions Inventory for a Typical Winter Day in
                                  2016
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Emission inventory summary                  CO (tons/day)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point Sources...........................................           0.901
Onroad Mobile...........................................          94.827
Nonroad Mobile..........................................          27.769
Railroads...............................................           0.255
Wood Burning............................................           6.454
Commercial Cooking......................................           0.137
Nat. Gas Fuel Combustion................................           3.144
                                                         ---------------
    Total...............................................         133.488
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The State noted that 92% of the CO in the 2016 emissions inventory
were from mobile sources. For that reason, the State also calculated
mobile source emissions data for the city of Provo on a typical winter
day in 2011, 2014 and 2016 using EPA-recommended mobile sources
emissions modeling methods (MOVES2014a).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) model; version
2014a.

     Table 2--Provo Vehicle Miles Traveled on an Average Winter Day
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Vehicle miles
                                             traveled/      Average CO
                  Year                     winter day in    tons/day in
                                            Provo city      Provo city
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2011....................................       1,255,778           16.53
2014....................................       1,312,491           14.46
2016....................................       1,497,156              13
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As shown in Table 2 (and as noted in the revised Provo Maintenance
Plan), modeled average CO emissions declined from 2011 to 2014, and
again from 2014 to 2016, despite an increase in vehicle miles traveled
in each of these periods, which the State attributed to vehicles
growing continuously cleaner over time. The Provo LMP contains a
detailed emission inventory that was prepared in accordance with EPA
guidance and is acceptable to the EPA.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ ``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment,'' from John Calcagni, September 4, 1992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Maintenance Demonstration

    We consider the maintenance demonstration requirement to be
satisfied for areas that qualify for and use the LMP option. As
mentioned above, a maintenance area is qualified to use the LMP option
if that area's maximum 8-hour CO design value for eight consecutive
quarters does not exceed 7.65 ppm (85% of the CO NAAQS). The EPA
maintains that if an area begins the maintenance period with a design
value no greater than 7.65 ppm, the applicability of prevention of
significant deterioration requirements, the control measures already in
the SIP, and federal measures should provide adequate assurance of
maintenance over the 10-year maintenance period. Therefore, the EPA
does not require areas using the LMP option to project emissions over
the maintenance period. Because CO design values in the Provo area are
consistently well below the LMP threshold (see Table 4), the State has
adequately demonstrated that the Provo area will maintain the CO NAAQS
into the future.

C. Monitoring Network/Verification of Continued Attainment

    Per the EPA's LMP Guidance, ``to verify the attainment status of
the area over the maintenance period, the maintenance plan should
contain provisions for continued operation of an appropriate, EPA-
approved air quality monitoring network.'' \8\ In instances where a
state has used the LMP option for a second ten-year CO maintenance plan
in an area whose monitoring values have consistently been well below
the NAAQS, the EPA has allowed the state to monitor CO in the
maintenance area using average daily traffic (ADT) counts in lieu of
ambient air quality monitoring.\9\ For the revised Provo Maintenance
Plan, the State has elected to use a similar alternative monitoring
method which does not rely on ambient monitoring to verify continued
attainment of the CO NAAQS. This method utilizes ADT counts that are
collected by a Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) traffic counter
located along a major thoroughfare (North University Avenue) in Provo,
by comparing ongoing ADT counts to those collected when monitoring data
in the area showed design values well below the CO NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See LMP Guidance, October 6, 1995, at 4.
    \9\ See, e.g., ``Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality
Implementation Plans; State of Montana Second 10-Year Carbon
Monoxide Maintenance Plan for Billings,'' 80 FR 16571, March 30,
2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since 2007, no Provo CO monitor has registered a design value
greater than 2.6 ppm, which is below one-third of the NAAQS.\10\ Citing
these consistently low monitor values, and expressing a desire to
reallocate monitoring resources, the State has requested to discontinue
CO monitoring in Provo and instead use an alternative strategy for
monitoring maintenance of the CO NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See Table 4 below. Design values were derived from the EPA
Air Data (https://www.epa.gov/outdoor-air-quality-data) website.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The State's alternative monitoring method utilizes ADT vehicle
counts collected from a permanent automatic traffic counter in the
Provo CO maintenance area to determine average monthly traffic during
the traditional high CO concentration season of November through
February. The State will compare the latest rolling 3-years of monthly
ADT volumes to the 2013-2016 baseline ADT volumes (see Table 3) that
correlate to the low CO monitored values during that period (see Table
4). Because mobile sources are the biggest driver of CO levels (as
demonstrated in the ``Emission Inventory'' section), the State reasoned
that any significant increase in CO emissions would have to be
accompanied by a significant increase in ADT.\11\ The EPA agrees with
the State's reasoning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See ``Review of National Ambient Air Quality Standards for
Carbon Monoxide,'' 76 FR 54294, August 31, 2011.

                Table 3--Traffic Volumes for Provo, Utah
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Rolling 2013-2016 ADT: November to  February
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Month-year                             Provo
------------------------------------------------------------------------
November 2013..............................................       27,223
December 2013..............................................       24,881
January 2014...............................................       27,361
February 2014..............................................       28,679
November 2014..............................................       28,453
December 2014..............................................       27,156
January 2015...............................................       29,056
February 2015..............................................       30,682
November 2015..............................................       29,582
December 2015..............................................       27,518
January 2016...............................................       30,452
February 2016..............................................       32,301
                                                            ------------
    Average................................................       28,612
------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Table 4--8-Hour CO Design Values for Provo, Utah
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Design value (ppm) \12\                        Year
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.6........................................................         2007
1.8........................................................         2008
2.5........................................................         2009
1.9........................................................         2010
2.0........................................................         2011
1.8........................................................         2012
2.1........................................................         2013
1.9........................................................         2014
2.1........................................................         2015
1.3........................................................         2016
1.6........................................................         2017
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the rolling 3-year ADT value is 25% higher than the average
value of 28,612 from the 2013-2016 baseline period, the State will
reestablish CO ambient monitoring in Provo the following high season
(November-February). If the CO design value in that season has not
increased from the baseline mean by an equal or greater rate at which
ADT has increased, and the monitor values remain at or below 50% of the
CO NAAQS (2nd max concentration <=4.5 ppm), the monitor may again be
removed and the ADT counts will continue to be relied upon to determine
compliance with the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Design values were derived from the EPA Air Data (https://www.epa.gov/outdoor-air-quality-data) website.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    40 CFR 58.14(c) allows approval of requests to discontinue ambient
monitors ``on a case-by-case basis if discontinuance does not
compromise data collection needed for implementation of a NAAQS and if
the requirements of appendix D to this part, if any, continue to be
met.'' The EPA finds that Utah's alternative monitoring method meets
the criteria of 40 CFR 58.14(c) for the Provo CO maintenance area.
Given the long history of low CO concentrations in the Provo area, and
the adequacy of the State's alternative monitoring method at ensuring
continued attainment of the CO NAAQS, the EPA finds it appropriate to
approve the State's request to discontinue the Provo monitor and use
their alternative monitoring method in its place.

D. Contingency Plan

    Section 175A(d) of the CAA requires that a maintenance plan include
contingency provisions to promptly correct any violation of the NAAQS
that occurs after redesignation of an area. To meet this requirement,
the State has identified appropriate contingency measures along with a
schedule for the development and implementation of such measures.
    The revised Provo Maintenance Plan stated that Utah will use an
exceedance of the CO NAAQS as the trigger for adopting specific
contingency measures for the Provo area. As noted, the State's
alternative monitoring method requires reinstitution of a CO monitor in
Provo if traffic levels increase from the 2013-2016 baseline by a
factor of 25%. Therefore, the EPA finds that CO emissions in Provo are
very unlikely to increase to the point of an exceedance without that
exceedance being observed by a gaseous monitor.
    The revised Provo Maintenance Plan indicates that, once monitoring
is reinstated, a measured 8-hour CO concentration in a given year which
exceeds the LMP eligibility requirement of 7.65 ppm would require the
State to evaluate the cause of the CO increase. Within 6 months of
validation of the concentration above 7.65 ppm, the State must present
the Utah Air Quality Board (UAQB) with a recommended strategy to either
prevent or correct any violation of the 8-hour CO standard. The revised
Provo Maintenance Plan also states that, if a violation of the CO NAAQS
occurs, the UAQB will hold a public meeting to consider the prior
contingency measures that helped bring the Provo area into attainment,
including the mandatory 2.7% oxygen fuels program and annual inspection
and maintenance tests for mobile sources, in addition to any measures
that could help the area reduce CO emissions. Selected contingency
measures would then be adopted and required by November 1st of the next
winter season.
    We find that the contingency measures provided in the revised Provo
Maintenance Plan are sufficient and meet the requirements of section
175A(d) of the CAA.

E. Transportation Conformity

    Transportation conformity is required by section 176(c) of the CAA.
Conformity to a SIP means that transportation activities will not
produce new air quality violations, worsen existing violations, or
delay timely attainment of the NAAQS (CAA 176(c)(B)). The EPA's
conformity rule provisions in 40 CFR part 93, subpart A require that
transportation plans, programs and projects conform to SIPs and
establish the criteria and procedures for determining whether or not
they demonstrate conformity. The EPA's conformity rule provisions
include requirements for a demonstration that emissions from the
Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and the Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) are consistent with the motor vehicle emission budget
(MVEB) contained in the SIP revision (40 CFR 93.118 and 93.124). The
MVEB is defined as the level of mobile source emissions relied upon in
the attainment or maintenance demonstration to maintain compliance with
the NAAQS in the nonattainment or maintenance area.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The EPA's transportation conformity requirements and policy
on MVEBs are found in the preamble to the November 24, 1993,
transportation conformity rule (see 58 FR 62193-62196) and in the
sections of 40 CFR part 93 referenced above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the LMP policy, emissions budgets are treated as essentially
not constraining for the length of the maintenance period. While the
EPA's LMP policy does not exempt an area from the need to affirm
conformity, it explains that the area may demonstrate conformity
without submitting a MVEB. This is because it is unreasonable to expect
that an LMP area will experience so much growth in that period that a
violation of the CO NAAQS would result.\14\ Therefore, for the Provo CO
maintenance area, all actions that require conformity determinations
for CO under our conformity rule provisions are considered to have
already satisfied the regional emissions analysis and ``budget test''
requirements in 40 CFR 93.118.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See LMP Guidance, October 6, 1995, at 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since LMP areas are still maintenance areas, certain aspects of
transportation conformity determinations are still required for
transportation plans, programs and projects. Specifically, for such
determinations, RTPs, TIPs and projects must still demonstrate that
they are fiscally constrained (40 CFR 93.108) and must meet the
criteria for consultation (40 CFR 93.105 and 40 CFR 93.112) and
Transportation Control Measure implementation in the conformity rule
provisions (40 CFR 93.113). In addition, projects in LMP areas will
still be required to meet the applicable criteria for CO hot spot
analyses to satisfy ``project level'' conformity determinations (40 CFR
93.116 and 40 CFR 93.123) which must also incorporate the latest
planning assumptions and models available (40 CFR 93.110 and 40 CFR
93.111 respectively).
    In view of the CO LMP policy, the effect of this proposed approval
will be that no regional emissions analyses for future transportation
CO conformity determinations will be required of the Mountainland
Association of Governments, who is the Metropolitan Planning
Organization for Utah County, for the CO LMP period (as per the EPA's
CO LMP policy and 40 CFR 93.109(e)).

III. Proposed Action

    The EPA is proposing to approve the revised Provo Maintenance Plan
submitted on January 14, 2019. This maintenance plan meets the
applicable CAA requirements and the EPA has determined it is sufficient
to provide for maintenance of the CO NAAQS over the course of the
second 10-year maintenance period out to 2025.

IV. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the

Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR
52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to
approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA.
Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve 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 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     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 an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     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 CAA; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications and
will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or
preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: February 25, 2020.
Gregory Sopkin,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2020-04230 Filed 2-28-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: August 20, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 161)]
[Notices]
[Page 51518-51519]
[DOCID:fr20au10-102]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

[Docket No. DOT-OST-2010-0203]

Office of the Secretary: Senior Executive Service Performance
Review Boards Membership

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of Performance Review Board (PRB) appointments.

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

SUMMARY: DOT publishes the names of the persons selected to serve on
the various Departmental PRBs as required by 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy A. Mowry, Director, Departmental
Office of Human Resource Management,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The persons named below have been selected
to serve on one or more Departmental PRBs.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 13, 2010.
Brodi L. Fontenot,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Administration.

Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration

Alicandri, Elizabeth
Arnold, Robert E.
Baxter, John R.
Brown, Janice W.
Cellini, Sue Anna
Cheatham, James A.
Conner, Clara H.
Curtis, Joyce A.
Elston, Debra S.
Furst, Anthony T.
Gee, King W.
Gibbs, David C.
Griffith, Michael S.
Holian, Thomas P.
Horne, Dwight A.
Johnson, Christine M.
Knopp, Martin C.
Konove, Elissa K.
Liff, Diane R.
Lindley, Jeffrey A.
Lucero, Amy C.
Lwin, Maung Myint
Marchese, April Lynn
Masuda, Allen
McElroy, Regina S.
Nicol, David A.
Paniati, Jeffrey F.
Peters, Joseph I.
Prosperi, Patricia A.
Ridenour, Melisa Lee
Rothstein, Cliff L.
Row, Shelley J.
Saunders, Ian C.
Shepherd, Gloria Morgan
Smith, Willie H.
Solomon, Gerald L.
St. Denis, Catherine
Stephanos, Peter J.
Suarez, Ricardo
Toole, Joseph S.
Toole, Patricia Ann
Trentacoste, Michael F.
Waidelich, Jr., Walter C.
Winter, David R.
Wlaschin, Julius

Federal Motor Carrier Administration

Amos, Anna J.
Gunnels, Mary D.
Horan III, Charles
Leone, Geraldine K.
McMurray, Rose A.
Minor, Larry W.
O'Sullivan, Kathleen B.

Pelcovits, Pamela
Quade III, William A.
Shelton, Terry
Tochen, David
Van Steenburg, John W.

Federal Railroad Administration

Coronel, Kim
Haley, Michael T.
Leeds, Jr., John G.
Logue, Michael
Nissenbaum, Paul
Pritchard, Edward W.
Rae, Karen J.
Reid, Margaret Bridge
Strang, Jo E.
Tessler, Mark
Yachmetz, Mark E.

Federal Transit Administration

Biehl, Scott A.
Borinsky, Susan C.
Hynes-Cherin, Brigid
Lindsey, Seth M.
Linnertz, Ann M.
Patrick, Robert C.
Rogers, Leslie T.
Schruth, Susan E.
Simon, Marisol
Taylor, Yvette
Thompson, Letitia
Tuccillo, Robert
Valdes, Vincent
Welbes, Matthew

Maritime Administration

Bohnert, Roger
Brohl, Helen
Byrne, Joseph Andrew
Caponiti, James
Ewen, Paula D.
Kumar, Sashi
Lesnick, H. Keith
McMahon, Christopher J.
Pixa, Rand
Rivait, David
Tokarski, Kevin
Weaver, Janice G.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Abraham, Julie
Amoni, Marilena
Beuse, Nathaniel
Carra, Joseph
Coggins, Colleen P.
Donaldson, K. John
Geraci, Michael
Guerci, Lloyd S.
Harris, Claude
Kratzke, Stephen R.
Maddox, John M.
Markison, Marlene
McLaughlin, Brian M.
McLaughlin, Susan
Medford, Ronald L.
Michael, Jeffrey P.
Pennington, Rebecca
Saul, Roger
Simons, James F.
Smith, Daniel C.
Walter, Gregory A.
Wood, Stephen

Office of Inspector General

Barry, Timothy M.
Calvaresi Barr, Ann
Come, Joseph W.
Dailey, Susan
Dettelbach, Brian A.
Dixon, Lou
Hampton, Matthew E.
Leng, Rebecca C.
Millman, Rosalyn

Office of Inspector General (Not Department of Transportation
Employees)

Allesandrino, Matthew (Department of Energy)
Delgado, Michael (Department of the Treasury)
Ellis, Karen (Department of Agriculture)
Hardsgrove, Steve (Department of the Interior)
Hartman, John (Department of Energy)
Heist, Melissa (Environmental Protection Agency)
O'Brien, Regina (General Services Administration)
Rish, Adrienne (U.S. Agency for International Development)
Taylor, Robert (Department of the Treasury)
Young, Robert (Department of Agriculture)
Wagner, Ben (Tennessee Valley Authority)

Office of the Secretary

DeBoer, Joan
DeCarme, David G.
Eisner, Neil
Fields, George
Fornarotto, Christa
Forsgren, Janet
Geier, Paul
Gretch, Paul L.
Herlihy, Thomas W.
Homan, Todd
Horn, Donald
Hurdle, Lana
Jackson, Ronald
Jones, Mary N.
Jones, Maureen A.
Kaleta, Judith
Knapp, Rosalind
Lawson, Linda
Leusch Carnaroli, Herbert
Lowder, Michael W.
McDermott, Susan
Mowry, Nancy A.
Neal, Brandon
Osborne, Elizabeth
Park, Laurie
Petrosino-Woolverton, Marie
Podberesky, Samuel
Schmidt, Robert T.
Streitmatter, Marlise
Szabat, Joel M.
Thomson, Kathryn B.
Washington, Keith
Washington, Linda J.
Wells, John
Ziff, Laura
Zuckman, Jill

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

Douglass, Madonna C.
El-Sibaie, Magdy A.
Richard, Robert A.
Summitt, Monica J.
Wiese, Jeffrey D.

Research and Innovative Technology Administration

Brecht-Clark, Jan
Chang, William
Dillingham, Steven
Smith, Steven K.
Tompkins, Curtis

Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation

Middlebrook, Craig H.
Pisani, Salvatore L.

Safety Transportation Board

Campbell, Rachel D.
Dettmar, Joseph
Gardner, Leland
Keats, Craig
Wallen, Matthew

[FR Doc. 2010-20670 Filed 8-19-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 207 (Friday, October 25, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57417-57418]
[FR Doc No: 2019-23353]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0045; FRL-10001-12]

Pesticide Product Registration; Receipt of Applications for New
Uses (September 2019)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: EPA has received applications to register new uses for
pesticide products containing currently registered active ingredients.
Pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA), EPA is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to
comment on these applications.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 25, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by the docket
identification (ID) number and the File Symbol of the EPA registration
number of interest as shown in the body of this document, by one of the
following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/where-send-comments-epa-dockets.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/about-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Goodis, Registration Division
(7505P), main telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>, email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Anita Pease, Antimicrobials Division (AD) (7510P),
main telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The mailing address for each contact person is:
Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. As part of the mailing
address, include the contact person's name, division, and mail code.
The division to contact is listed at the end of each application
summary.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).

     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When preparing and submitting
your comments, see the commenting tips at https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

II. Registration Applications

    EPA has received applications to register new uses for pesticide
products containing currently registered active ingredients. Pursuant
to the provisions of FIFRA section 3(c)(4) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(4)), EPA
is hereby providing notice of receipt and opportunity to comment on
these applications. Notice of receipt of these applications does not
imply a decision by the Agency on these applications.

New Uses

    1. EPA Registration Numbers: 264-1143, 264-1141, 264-1142. Docket
ID Number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0460. Applicant: Bayer CropScience, 2 T.W.
Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709. Active ingredient:
Flupyradifurone. Product type: Insecticide. Proposed use: Foliar use
for rapeseed sub crop group 20A, canola seed treatment. Contact: RD.
    2. File Symbol: 538-GGI. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0559.
Applicant: The Scotts Company LLC, 14111 Scottslawn Rd., Marysville, OH
43041. Product name: Scotts ZeroScrub Cleaner Conc/RTS. Active
ingredient: Nonanoic acid at 2.0%. Product type: Antimicrobial.
Proposed uses: End-use product as a one-step liquid cleaner, for
outdoor residential use for moss, mold, mildew, and algae removal,
control, and stain removal. Contact: AD.
    3. File Symbol: 538-GGO. Docket ID number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0559.
Applicant: The Scotts Company LLC, 14111 Scottslawn Rd., Marysville, OH
43041. Product name: Scotts ZeroScrub Cleaner RTU. Active ingredient:
Nonanoic acid at 0.1%. Product type: Antimicrobial. Proposed uses: End-
use product as a one-step liquid cleaner, for outdoor residential use
for moss, mold, mildew, and algae removal, control, and stain removal.
Contact: AD.
    4. EPA Registration Numbers: 59639-107, 59639-202. Docket ID
number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2018-0644. Applicant: Interregional Research Project
Number 4 (IR-4), IR-4 project Headquarters, Rutgers, The State
University of New Jersey, 500 College Road East, Suite 201 W,
Princeton, NJ 08450. Active ingredient: Etoxazole. Product type:
Insecticide. Proposed use: Beet, sugar, roots; beet, sugar, leaves.
Contact: RD.
    5. EPA Registration Numbers: 66330-403, 66330-404. Docket ID
number: EPA-HQ-OPP-2019-0389. Applicant: Arysta LifeScience North
America LLC, 15401 Weston Parkway, Suite 150, Cary, NC 27513. Active
ingredient: Kasugamycin. Product type: Fungicide/Bactericide. Proposed
use: Peach subgroup 12-12B, apricot and almond. Contact: RD.

    Authority:  7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: October 10, 2019.
Delores Barber,
Director, Information Technology and Resources Management Division,
Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 2019-23353 Filed 10-24-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 166 (Tuesday, August 27, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 44893]
[FR Doc No: 2019-18429]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP19-475-000]

Notice of Schedule for Environmental Review of the Gulfstream
Natural Gas System, L.L.C. Phase VI Expansion Project

    On June 3, 2019, Gulfstream Natural Gas System, L.L.C. (Gulfstream)
filed an application in Docket No. CP19-475-000 requesting a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity pursuant to Section
7(b) and 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act to abandon, construct, and operate
certain natural gas pipeline facilities in Alabama and Florida. The
proposed project is known as the Phase VI Expansion Project (Project).
The Project would add an additional 78,000 dekatherms per day of
mainline capacity to an existing power plant in Manatee County,
Florida.
    On June 17, 2019, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission or FERC) issued its Notice of Application for the Project.
Among other things, that notice alerted agencies issuing federal
authorizations of the requirement to complete all necessary reviews and
to reach a final decision on a request for a federal authorization
within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's
Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Project. This instant notice
identifies the FERC staff's planned schedule for the completion of the
EA for the Project.

Schedule for Environmental Review

Issuance of EA--January 16, 2020
90-day Federal Authorization Decision Deadline--April 15, 2020

    If a schedule change becomes necessary, additional notice will be
provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the
Project's progress.

Project Description

    Gulfstream proposes to install one 16,000 horsepower turbine driven
compressor unit at its existing Compressor Station 410 located in
Mobile County, Alabama and would also abandon in place approximately 4
miles of 36-inch-diameter pipeline in Mobile County. Gulfstream would
construct approximately 4 miles of thicker walled 36-inch-diameter
pipeline to replace the abandoned pipeline and increase the maximum
allowable operating pressure of approximately 59 miles of 36-inch-
diameter onshore and offshore pipeline. The Project would also require
the construction of metering equipment at Compressor Station 420 in
Manatee County, Florida.

Background

    On July 25, 2019, the Commission issued a Notice of Intent to
Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Phase VI Expansion
Project and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues (NOI). The NOI
was sent to affected landowners; federal, state, and local government
agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups;
Native American tribes; other interested parties; and local libraries
and newspapers. To date, the Commission received comments from one
landowner in response to the NOI. The primary issues raised by the
commenter were not related to the Project. All substantive comments
will be addressed in the forthcoming EA.

Additional Information

    In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EA and to
keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets,
the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. This can
reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by
automatically providing you with notification of these filings,
document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.
    Additional information about the Project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs at (866) 208-FERC or on the
FERC website (www.ferc.gov). Using the eLibrary link, select General
Search from the eLibrary menu, enter the selected date range and Docket
Number excluding the last three digits (i.e., CP19-475), and follow the
instructions. For assistance with access to eLibrary, the helpline can
be reached at<PHONE_NUMBER>, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>, or at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The eLibrary link on the FERC website also
provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the
Commission, such as orders, notices, and rule makings.

    Dated: August 21, 2019.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-18429 Filed 8-26-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 160 (Monday, August 21, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56813-56815]
[FR Doc No: 2023-17907]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2800-054]

Essex Company, LLC; Notice of Intent To File License Application,
Filing of Pre-Application Document (Pad), Commencement of Pre-Filing
Process, and Scoping, Request For Comments on the Pad and Scoping
Document, and Identification of Issues and Associated Study Requests

    a. Type of Filing: Notice of Intent to File License Application for
a New

License and Commencing Pre-filing Process.
    b. Project No.: 2800-054.
    c. Dated Filed: June 16, 2023.
    d. Submitted By: Essex Company, LLC (Essex).
    e. Name of Project: Lawrence Hydroelectric Project (Lawrence
Project).
    f. Location: The project is located on the Merrimack River in the
City of Lawrence in Essex County, Massachusetts.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR part 5 of the Commission's
Regulations.
    h. Applicant Contact: Kevin Webb, Hydro Licensing Manager, Essex
Company, 670 N Commercial Street, Suite 204, Manchester, NH 03101;
(978) 935-6039; [email protected].
    i. FERC Contact: Bill Connelly at<PHONE_NUMBER> or email at
[email protected].
    j. Cooperating agencies: Federal, state, local, and tribal agencies
with jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to
environmental issues that wish to cooperate in the preparation of the
environmental document should follow the instructions for filing such
requests described in item o below. Cooperating agencies should note
the Commission's policy that agencies that cooperate in the preparation
of the environmental document cannot also intervene. See 94 FERC ]
61,076 (2001).
    k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with:
(a) the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration Fisheries under section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act and the joint agency regulations thereunder at 50 CFR part
402; and (b) the State Historic Preservation Office, as required by
section 106, National Historic Preservation Act, and the implementing
regulations of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR
800.2.
    l. With this notice, we are designating Essex as the Commission's
non-federal representative for carrying out informal consultation,
pursuant to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and section 106 of
the National Historic Preservation Act.
    m. Essex filed with the Commission a Pre-Application Document
(PAD), including a proposed process plan and schedule, pursuant to 18
CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations.
    n. A copy of the PAD may be viewed on the Commission's website
(http://www.ferc.gov) using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket
number, excluding the last three digits in the docket number field, to
access the document. For assistance, contact FERC at
[email protected] or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,
(202) 502-8659.
    You may register online at https://ferconline.ferc.gov/FERCOnline.aspx to be notified via email of new filings and issuances
related to these or other pending projects. For assistance, contact
FERC Online Support.
    o. With this notice, we are soliciting comments on the PAD and
Commission staff's Scoping Document 1 (SD1), as well as study requests.
All comments on the PAD and SD1, and study requests should be sent to
the address above in paragraph h. In addition, all comments on the PAD
and SD1, study requests, requests for cooperating agency status, and
all communications to and from staff related to the merits of the
potential application must be filed with the Commission.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file
all documents using the Commission's eFiling system at https://ferconline.ferc.gov/FERCOnline.aspx. Commenters can submit brief
comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the
eComment system at https://ferconline.gov/QuickComment.aspx. You must
include your name and contact information at the end of your comments.
For assistance, please contact FERC Support at
[email protected]. In lieu of electronic filing, you may
submit a paper copy. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must
be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426.
Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly
D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins
Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852. The first page of any filing should
include docket number P-2800-054.
    All filings with the Commission must bear the appropriate heading:
``Comments on Pre-Application Document,'' ``Study Requests,''
``Comments on Scoping Document 1,'' ``Request for Cooperating Agency
Status,'' or ``Communications to and from Commission Staff.'' Any
individual or entity interested in submitting study requests,
commenting on the PAD or SD1, and any agency requesting cooperating
status must do so by October 14, 2023.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure provide
that if a filing deadline falls on a Saturday, Sunday, holiday, or
other day when the Commission is closed for business, the filing
deadline does not end until the close of business on the next
business day. 18 CFR 385.2007(a)(2) (2022). Because the filing
deadline falls on a Saturday (i.e., September 2, 2023), the filing
deadline is extended until the close of business on Monday, October
16, 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    p. The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports
meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission
proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners,
environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access
publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For
public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as
interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is
encouraged to contact OPP at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected].
    q. The Commission's scoping process will help determine the
required level of analysis and satisfy the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) scoping requirements, irrespective of whether the
Commission prepares an environmental assessment or environmental impact
statement.

Scoping Meetings

    Commission staff will hold two scoping meetings for the project to
receive input on the scope of the NEPA document. An evening meeting
will be held at 7:00 p.m. on September 13, 2023, at the Elk's Lodge #65
in Lawrence, Massachusetts, and will focus on receiving input from the
public. A daytime meeting will be held at 10:00 a.m. on September 14,
2023, at Lawrence Public Library in Lawrence, Massachusetts, and will
focus on the concerns of resource agencies, non-governmental
organizations (NGOs), and Indian Tribes. We invite all interested
agencies, Indian Tribes, non-governmental organizations, and
individuals to attend one or both meetings. Spanish-English translation
services will be provided. If a significant number of people are
interested in providing oral comments, a time limit of 3 minutes may
need to be implemented for each commentor.
    The times and locations of these meetings are as follows:

Evening Scoping Meeting

    Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2023.
    Time: 7:00 p.m. (EDT).
    Place: Elks Lodge #65.
    Address: 652 Andover Street, Lawrence, MA 01843.
    Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Daytime Scoping Meeting

    Date: Thursday, September 14, 2023.
    Time: 10:00 a.m. (EDT).

    Place: Lawrence Public Library, Sargent Auditorium.
    Address: 51 Lawrence Street, Lawrence, MA 01841.
    Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    SD1, which outlines the subject areas to be addressed in the
environmental document, was mailed to the individuals and entities on
the Commission's mailing list and Essex's distribution list. Copies of
SD1 may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link. Follow the directions for accessing information in
paragraph n. Based on all oral and written comments, a Scoping Document
2 (SD2) may be issued. SD2 may include a revised process plan and
schedule, as well as a list of issues, identified through the scoping
process.

Environmental Site Review

    The applicant and Commission staff will conduct an environmental
site review of the project. All interested individuals, agencies,
tribes, and NGOs are invited to attend. Please RSVP via email to
[email protected] or notify Miley Kinney at<PHONE_NUMBER> on or
before September 5, 2023 if you plan to attend the environmental site
review. The time and location of the environmental site review is as
follows:

Lawrence Project

    Date: Wednesday, September 13, 2023.
    Time: 9:00 a.m. (EDT).
    Place:
     Lawrence Gateway parking lot.
    Address: 70 General Street, Lawrence, MA 01840.
    Participants will meet at the Lawrence Gateway parking lot and
depart to the Lawrence at 9:15 a.m. (EDT). Essex will provide
transportation to the project facilities. All participants are
responsible for their own transportation to the Lawrence Gateway
parking lot.
    All persons attending the environmental site review must wear
sturdy, closed-toe shoes or boots. The applicant will provide hard hats
to attendees for entry into low-overhead areas, if needed; however,
participants who have their own hardhats should bring them.

Meeting Objectives

    At the scoping meetings, Commission staff will: (1) initiate
scoping of the issues; (2) review and discuss existing conditions; (3)
review and discuss existing information and identify preliminary
information and study needs; (4) review and discuss the process plan
and schedule for pre-filing activity that incorporates the time frames
provided for in Part 5 of the Commission's regulations and, to the
extent possible, maximizes coordination of federal, state, and tribal
permitting and certification processes; and (5) discuss the potential
of any federal or state agency or Indian tribe to act as a cooperating
agency for development of an environmental document.
    Meeting participants should come prepared to discuss their issues
and/or concerns. Please review the PAD in preparation for the scoping
meetings. Directions on how to obtain a copy of the PAD and SD1 are
included in item n of this document.

Meeting Procedures

    Commission staff are moderating the scoping meetings. The meetings
are recorded by an independent stenographer and become part of the
formal record of the Commission proceeding on the project. Individuals,
NGOs, Indian Tribes, and agencies with environmental expertise and
concerns are encouraged to attend the meeting and to assist the staff
in defining and clarifying the issues to be addressed in the NEPA
document.

     Dated: August 15, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-17907 Filed 8-18-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


                 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                            REGION IX AIR DIVISION

                          Technical Support Document
                                      for
                              EPA's Rulemaking
                                    for the
                     California State Implementation Plan

        Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District Rule 323.1
                            Architectural Coatings

                          Prepared by: Arnold Lazarus
                          Reviewed by: Andrew Steckel

                                September 2015

RULE IDENTIFICATION -
Agency
Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (SBCAPCD)

SIP Approved Rule
There is no previous version of this rule
Subject of this TSD
Rule 323.1  Adopted June 19, 2014
Submitted  -  November 6, 2014
Completeness Finding
Determination of Completeness letter: December 18, 2014
Effective Date of Rule
January 1, 2015

BACKGROUND  -  The SBCAPCD has been classified for the 8-hour ozone standard as unclassifiable/ attainment. According to the Staff Report,"The intent of new Rule 323.1 is to reduce volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from coatings used in the painting of buildings and other structures."
"The Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (District) expects Rule 323.1 will reduce VOC emissions by about 98 tons per year (TPY) in planning year 2020, thereby cleaning the air and allowing progress toward meeting state health standard for ozone. The estimated 98 TPY emission reduction is in addition to the emission reduction already achieved by the existing Rule 323."
"Current Rule 323 established limits on the VOC content of architectural coatings supplied, sold, offered for sale, applied, solicited for application, or manufactured for use within the District. We propose to update the architectural coatings rule requirements in a new Rule 323.1 and ultimately phase out Rule 323. With this approach, stores can sell existing Rule 323-compliant coatings up to three years after Rule 323.1 becomes effective."
"Staff proposes to lower architectural coating VOC content limits for consistency with the California Air Resources Board Suggested Control Measure (SCM) for Architectural Coatings (adopted October 26, 2007), which other air districts have adopted and implemented."
This is being accomplished by an alignment that is almost identical to the SCM except for section numbers, headings, added definitions, updated VOC exemptions and updated testing methods.

RULE SUMMARY  -  SBCAPCD Rule 323.1 controls VOC emissions from architectural coatings by establishing VOC limits on any architectural coating that is supplied, sold, offered for sale or manufactured for use within the SBCAPCD. Architectural coatings are coatings that are applied to stationary structures and their accessories. They include house paints, stains, industrial maintenance coatings, traffic coatings, and many other products. VOCs are emitted from the coatings during application and from the associated solvents used for thinning and clean-up. Rule 323.1 establishes more stringent VOC limits than SBCAPCD's existing architectural coating Rule 323, but Rule 323.1 allows sources to sell existing stock of higher-VOC coatings for three years.  After the three-year sell-through period expires, SBCAPCD intends to remove Rule 323 and rely only on the more stringent Rule 323.1

EVALUATION CRITERIA - The following criteria were used to evaluate the submitted rule.

1.	Enforceability - The Bluebook (Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations, EPA, May 25, 1988) and the Little Bluebook (Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies, EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001) were used to help evaluate compliance with the CAA §110(a)(2)(A) requirement for enforceability.

      2.	Stringency  -  SBCAPCD has been classified for the 8-hour ozone standard as unclassifiable/attainment. The district has no obligation to satisfy Clean Air Act (CAA) section 182 Reasonably Available Control Techniques (RACT) or other similar CAA stringency thresholds because architectural coating is an area source and not a stationary source and because the area is not a moderate or above ozone nonattainment area. Nonetheless, we have evaluated the rule for RACT-level controls as well as against EPA's National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standard for Architectural Coatings (40 CFR Part 59 Subpart D), and against the California Air Resources Board's (CARB) Suggested Control Measures (SCM) for Architectural Coatings, which is the basis for most of the most stringent architectural coating requirements in California.

      3.	SIP Relaxation - CAA §110(l) prohibits EPA from approving any SIP revision that would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (RFP) or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. In addition, CAA §193 prohibits the modification of any SIP-approved control requirement in effect before November 15, 1990, in a nonattainment area.

In applying these criteria to the submitted rule, we referred to the following guidance and policy documents:

      1. Issues Relating to VOC Regulation, Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations (the "Blue Book"), US EPA, OAQPS (May 25, 1988).
      2. Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC and Other Rule Deficiencies, EPA Region IX (August 21, 2001, the "Little Bluebook").
      3. State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).
      4. Final Rule To Implement the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS  -  Phase 2, 70 FR 71612 (Nov. 25, 2005).

EPA EVALUATION - A summary of our evaluation of the three criteria follows.

      1. 	To help ensure enforceability, the rule requirements and applicability are clear, and the monitoring, recordkeeping, reporting and other provisions sufficiently ensure that affected sources and regulators can evaluate and determine compliance with Rule 323.1 consistently.

      2. 	Rule 323.1 is as stringent as the SCM and more stringent than 40 CFR Part 59 Subpart D.  Therefore we determine that it implements RACT-level controls.

      3. 	Rule 323.1 is more stringent than the existing requirements in Rule 323.  Therefore, we propose to determine that our approval of the submittal would comply with CAA §§110(l) and 193 because (1) the proposed SIP revision would not interfere with the on-going process for ensuring that requirements for RFP and attainment of the NAAQS are met, and (2) the emission limits in the submitted rule are more stringent than the existing SIP-approved control requirements that they would replace.

RULE DEFICIENCIES  -  We find no deficiencies with Rule 323.1 to preclude anything but a full approval of Rule 323.1.

EPA ACTION - The submitted Rule 323.1 strengthens the SIP, and the associated District staff report projects it will reduce VOC emissions by approximately 98 tons/year in 2020. The rule largely fulfils the relevant CAA §110 and part D requirements. Therefore, EPA staff recommends full approval of Rule 323.1 pursuant to CAA §110(k)(3) and §301(a).

REFERENCES

   1. "Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations," (a.k.a., Bluebook) EPA OAQPS, May 25, 1988 (http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ozone/ozonetech/voc_bluebook.pdf).
   2. "Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies," (a.k.a., Little Bluebook), EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (http://www.epa.gov/region09/air/sips/littlebluebook2001.pdf).
   3. Project Description Summary of the Effects of New Rule 323.1, Architectural Coatings (Staff Report), SBCAPCD, May 15, 2014.
   4. SBCAPCD Rule 323, Architectural Coatings, adopted November 15, 2001; granted a limited approval limited disapproval into the SIP, January 2, 2004 (69 FR 34).
   5. SBCAPCD Rule 323.1 Architectural Coatings, Adopted June 19, 2014, Submitted November 6, 2014.
   6. CARB SCM for Architectural Coatings, Approved October 26, 2007.
   7. EPA's National Volatile Organic Compound Emission Standard for Architectural Coatings (40 CFR Part 59 Subpart D).


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 219 (Tuesday, November 15, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 68358-68360]
[FR Doc No: 2022-24953]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2022-0933]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Corpus Christi Shipping Channel, Corpus Christi, TX

AGENCY: Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
all navigable waters of the Corpus Christi Shipping Channel in a zone
defined by the following coordinates: 27[deg]48'55.07'' N,
97[deg]13'15.94'' W; 27[deg]48'54.99'' N, 97[deg]13'6.74'' W;
27[deg]48'44.46'' N, 97[deg]13'6.86'' W; 27[deg]48'44.54'' N,
97[deg]13'16.06'' W. The safety zone is needed to protect personnel,
vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by
pipelines that will be removed from the floor of the Corpus Christi
Shipping Channel. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is
prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port
Sector Corpus Christi or a designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 9 a.m. through 3 p.m. on November
15, 2022. This rule will be subject to enforcement from 9 a.m. through
3 p.m.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Lieutenant Commander Anthony Garofalo, Sector Corpus
Christi Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 361-
939-5130, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. We must
establish this safety zone immediately to protect personnel, vessels,
and the marine environment from potential hazards created by pipeline
removal operations and lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable
comment period and then to consider those comments before issuing the
rule.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be contrary to the public interest because immediate
action is needed to respond to the potential safety hazards associated
with pipeline removal operations in the Corpus Christi Shipping
Channel.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034. The Captain of the Port Sector Corpus Christi (COTP) has
determined that potential hazards associated with pipeline removal
operations occurring from 9 a.m. through 3 p.m. on November 15, 2022,
will be a safety concern for anyone within the Corpus Christi Shipping
Channel in a zone defined by the following coordinates;
27[deg]48'55.07'' N, 97[deg]13'15.94'' W; 27[deg]48'54.99'' N,
97[deg]13'6.74'' W; 27[deg]48'44.46'' N, 97[deg]13'6.86'' W;
27[deg]48'44.54'' N, 97[deg]13'16.06'' W. The purpose of this rule is
to ensure safety of vessels and persons on these navigable waters in
the safety zone while pipelines are removed from the floor of the
Corpus Christi Shipping Channel.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a temporary safety zone from 9 a.m. through 3
p.m. on November 15, 2022, and will be subject to enforcement from 9
a.m. to 3 p.m. The safety zone will encompass all navigable waters of
the Corpus Christi Shipping Channel in a zone defined by the following
coordinates; 27[deg]48'55.07'' N, 97[deg]13'15.94'' W;
27[deg]48'54.99'' N, 97[deg]13'6.74'' W; 27[deg]48'44.46'' N,

97[deg]13'6.86'' W; 27[deg]48'44.54'' N, 97[deg]13'16.06'' W. The
pipeline will be removed along the floor of the Corpus Christi Shipping
Channel. No vessel or person is permitted to enter the temporary safety
zone during the effective period without obtaining permission from the
COTP or a designated representative, who may be contacted on Channel 16
VHF-FM (156.8 MHz) or by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>. The Coast Guard
will issue Broadcast Notices to Mariners, Local Notices to Mariners,
and/or Safety Marine Information Broadcasts as appropriate.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this
rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, and duration of the safety zone. The temporary safety zone
will be enforced for a short period of only 6 hours each day. The rule
does not completely restrict the traffic within a waterway and allows
mariners to request permission to enter the zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
temporary safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in
section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on any vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect 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. If
you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section above.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01, and Environmental Planning, COMDTINST 5090.1
(series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the 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 establishment of a temporary safety
zone for navigable waters of the Corpus Christi Shipping Channel in a
zone defined by the following coordinates: 27[deg]48'55.07'' N,
97[deg]13'15.94'' W; 27[deg]48'54.99'' N, 97[deg]13'6.74'' W;
27[deg]48'44.46'' N, 97[deg]13'6.86'' W; 27[deg]48'44.54'' N,
97[deg]13'16.06'' W. The safety zone is needed to protect personnel,
vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by
pipeline that will be removed from the floor of the Corpus Christi
Shipping Channel. It is categorically excluded from further review
under paragraph L60(c) Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual
023-01-001-01, Rev. 1.

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
recordkeeping 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

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
00170.1, Revision No. 01.2.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T08-0933 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T08 0933   Safety Zone; Corpus Christi Shipping Channel,
Corpus Christi, TX.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: all navigable
waters of the Corpus Christi Shipping Channel in a zone defined by the
following coordinates: 27[deg]48'55.07'' N, 97[deg]13'15.94'' W;
27[deg]48'54.99'' N, 97[deg]13'6.74'' W; 27[deg]48'44.46'' N,
97[deg]13'6.86'' W; 27[deg]48'44.54'' N, 97[deg]13'16.06'' W.
    (b) Effective period. This section is effective from 9 a.m. through
3 p.m. on November 15, 2022. This section is subject to enforcement
from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m.
    (c) Regulations. (1) According to the general regulations in Sec.
165.23, entry into the temporary safety zone in paragraph (a) of this
section is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port
Sector Corpus Christi (COTP) or a designated representative. They may
be contacted on Channel 16 VHF-FM (156.8 MHz) or by telephone at 361-
939-0450.
    (2) If permission is granted, all persons and vessels shall comply
with the instructions of the COTP or designated representative.
    (d) Information broadcasts. The COTP or a designated representative
will inform the public of the enforcement times and date for this
safety zone through Broadcast Notices to Mariners, Local Notices to
Mariners, and/or Safety Marine Information Broadcasts as appropriate.

    Dated: November 9, 2022.
J.B. Gunning,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector Corpus Christi.
[FR Doc. 2022-24953 Filed 11-10-22; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P