[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 116 (Monday, June 17, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36281-36284]
[FR Doc No: 2013-14255]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-69734; File No. SR-NYSE-2013-35]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; New York Stock Exchange LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
Amending Its Price List Related to Certain Pricing Applicable to
Supplemental Liquidity Providers on the Exchange

June 11, 2013.
    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 May 30, 2013, New York Stock Exchange LLC (the ``Exchange'' or
``NYSE'') 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 its Price List related to certain
pricing applicable to Supplemental Liquidity Providers (``SLPs'') on
the Exchange. The Exchange proposes to implement the fee change
effective June 1, 2013. The text of the proposed rule change is
available on the Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the principal
office of the Exchange, 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 self-regulatory organization
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 those 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 parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Price List related to certain
pricing applicable to SLPs on the Exchange. The Exchange proposes to
implement the fee change effective June 1, 2013.
    An SLP is a member organization that electronically enters orders
or quotes from off the Floor of the Exchange into the systems and
facilities of the Exchange and is obligated to maintain a bid or an
offer at the National Best Bid (``NBB'') or the National Best Offer
(``NBO'') in each assigned security in round lots averaging at least
10% of the trading day (the ``percentage quoting requirement'').\3\ In
addition, for all assigned SLP securities, an SLP is required to
satisfy a ``monthly volume requirement'' by adding liquidity of an
average daily volume (``ADV'') of more than a specified percentage
(currently 0.22%) of consolidated ADV (``CADV'') in all NYSE-listed
securities, as set forth in the Exchange's Price List.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Rule 107B(a). An SLP can either be a proprietary trading
unit of a member organization or a registered market maker at the
Exchange. If an SLP does not satisfy the percentage quoting
requirement, it may be subject to certain non-regulatory penalties.
Specifically, if the SLP failed to satisfy the percentage quoting
requirement during a particular month, it would be ineligible to
receive higher SLP credits. If the SLP failed to satisfy the
percentage quoting requirement for three consecutive calendar months
in any assigned security, the SLP would be at risk of having its
assignment in the affected security(ies) revoked or being
disqualified from its status as an SLP. See Rule 107B(k).
    \4\ An SLP's failure to satisfy the monthly volume requirement
would not result in the non-regulatory penalties described in Rule
107B(k). Rather, the monthly volume requirement only determines
whether an SLP would be eligible for higher SLP credits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SLPs are eligible for credits when adding liquidity to the
Exchange.\5\ The amount of the credit is currently determined by the
``tier'' that the SLP qualifies for, which is generally based on the
SLP's level of quoting and the ADV of liquidity added by the SLP in
assigned securities.\6\ The current rate for the base tier is $0.0015
per share (or $0.0010 if a Non-Displayed Reserve Order), which is
applicable if an SLP does not satisfy the percentage quoting
requirement or the monthly volume requirement and therefore does not
qualify for the higher SLP tiers (and corresponding credits) in the
Price List. The Exchange proposes that, instead of the static $0.0015
rate, the applicable rate for the base SLP tier would be the rate that
applies to the non-SLP activity of the member organization (i.e., a
$0.0015, $0.0017, or $0.0018 per share credit when adding liquidity to
the Exchange). As a result, if an SLP did not qualify for one of the
higher SLP tiers (e.g., a $0.0023 or $0.0025 per share credit), the
SLP's transactions that add liquidity would be subject to the same rate
that applies to the non-SLP transactions of the SLP's member
organization. These rates are currently as follows: \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ SLP credits are not applicable to executions of securities
with a per share price of $1.00 or more at the close.
    \6\ For purposes of SLP liquidity credits, ADV calculations
exclude early closing days.
    \7\ The Exchange notes that the $0.0010 rate for a Non-Displayed
Reserve Order would not change as a result of this proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     A $0.0015 per share credit (or $0.0010 if a Non-Displayed
Reserve Order) for adding liquidity to the Exchange, unless a higher
credit applies;
     A $0.0017 per share credit when adding displayed liquidity
to the Exchange if the member organization has ``Adding ADV'' \8\ that
is at least 0.20% of NYSE CADV and executes market at-the-close
(``MOC'') and limit at-the-close (``LOC'') orders of at least 0.10% of
NYSE CADV; or
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ ``Adding ADV'' is when a member organization has ADV that
adds liquidity to the Exchange during the billing month. Adding ADV
excludes any liquidity added by a Designated Market Maker.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     An $0.0018 per share credit when adding displayed
liquidity to the Exchange if the member organization satisfies certain
thresholds related to ``Adding ADV,'' MOC and LOC activity, SLP
activity and ``Customer Electronic Adding ADV.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ An $0.0018 per share credit is provided per transaction when
adding displayed liquidity to the Exchange if (i) the member
organization has Adding ADV that is at least 1.5% of NYSE CADV, and
executes MOC and LOC orders of at least 0.375% of NYSE CADV, (ii)
the member organization has Adding ADV that is at least 0.8% of NYSE
CADV, executes MOC and LOC orders of at least 0.12% of NYSE CADV,
and adds liquidity to the NYSE as an SLP for all assigned SLP
securities in the aggregate (including shares of both an SLP
proprietary trading unit and an SLP market maker of the same member
organization) of more than 0.15% of NYSE CADV, or (iii) the member
organization has ADV that adds liquidity in customer electronic
orders to the NYSE (``Customer Electronic Adding ADV,'' which shall
exclude any liquidity added by a Floor broker, Designated Market
Maker, or SLP) during the billing month that is at least 0.5% of
NYSE CADV, executes MOC and LOC orders of at least 0.12% of NYSE
CADV, and has Customer Electronic Adding ADV during the billing
month that, taken as a percentage of NYSE CADV, is at least equal to
the member organization's Customer Electronic Adding ADV during
September 2012 as a percentage of CADV in NYSE-listed securities
during September 2012 plus 15%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to provide clarity regarding the applicable rates, the
Exchange proposes to label these existing $0.0015, $0.0017, and $0.0018
per share credits the ``non-Tier Adding Credit,'' the ``Tier 2 Adding
Credit'' and the ``Tier 1 Adding Credit,'' respectively.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ This proposed change would have no impact on these existing
rates or the Exchange's method of determining applicability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange is proposing this change because the current pricing
structure could result in an SLP's transactions that add liquidity
receiving a price that is inferior to that of the non-SLP transactions
of the same member organization. The potential for this inferior
pricing is the result of a pricing change that became effective October
1, 2012, through which the Exchange introduced the $0.0017 and $0.0018
rates in the Price List for non-SLP activity of a member organization
that adds liquidity.\11\ Prior to the introduction of these two rates,
the non-SLP rate for adding liquidity was $0.0015 for all member
organizations, which is the same as the base SLP credit rate.\12\
Accordingly, prior to October 2012 it was not possible for an SLP to
receive a rate for adding liquidity that was inferior to the rate
applicable to non-SLP activity of a member organization, even if the
SLP failed to satisfy the percentage quoting requirement or the monthly
volume requirement. The Exchange notes that SLP volume is counted when
determining whether a member organization has achieved the non-SLP
pricing thresholds that correspond to the rates introduced in October
2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68021 (October 9,
2012), 77 FR 63406 (October 16, 2012) (SR-NYSE- 2012-50).
    \12\ The $0.0015 rate still applies for member organizations
that do not qualify for the $0.0017 or $0.0018 rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SLP program provides incentives for quoting and adds
competition to the existing group of liquidity providers. Specifically,
by requiring SLPs to quote at the NBB or NBO a percentage of the
regular trading day in their assigned securities, and by paying a
rebate to SLPs, the Exchange believes that it rewards aggressive
liquidity providers and encourages the additional utilization of, and
interaction with, the Exchange and provides customers with the premier
venue for price discovery, liquidity, competitive quotes and price
improvement.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 58877 (October 29,
2008), 73 FR 65904-05 (November 5, 2008) (SR-NYSE-2008-108).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that it is inconsistent with the goal of the
SLP program to continue to permit an SLP to receive a rate that is
inferior to that

received by non-SLP activity of a member organization, because it could
disincentivize member organizations from participating as SLPs and
therefore lead to decreased levels of liquidity. Accordingly, the
Exchange proposes to amend the Price List to specify that the rate
applicable to the base SLP tier would be the applicable non-Tier Adding
Credit, Tier 2 Adding Credit or Tier 1 Adding Credit (or $0.0010 if a
Non-Displayed Reserve Order).
    The Exchange notes that the proposed change is not otherwise
intended to address any other issues, and the Exchange is not aware of
any problems that member organizations, including SLPs, would have in
complying with the proposed change.
    The Exchange believes that it is subject to significant competitive
forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement regarding the
burden on competition.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) of the Act,\14\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act,\15\ in
particular, because it provides for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members, issuers and
other persons using its facilities and does not unfairly discriminate
between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed change is reasonable
because the current pricing structure could result in an SLP's
transactions that add liquidity receiving a price that is inferior to
that of the non-SLP transactions of the same member organization. This
is inconsistent with the goal of the SLP program, because it could
disincentivize member organizations from participating as SLPs and
therefore lead to decreased levels of liquidity.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See supra note 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For example, an SLP must satisfy both the percentage quoting
requirement and the monthly volume requirement in order to qualify for
the higher SLP credits. However, only satisfaction of the percentage
quoting requirement is required to avoid the non-regulatory penalties
that are applicable to SLPs (i.e., the monthly volume requirement only
determines whether the SLP is eligible for higher SLP credits).
Accordingly, an SLP that satisfied the percentage quoting requirement
would have satisfied its SLP ``obligations,'' but if it did not satisfy
the monthly volume requirement it would not receive the higher SLP
credits and therefore could receive a lower credit than the non-SLP
activity of the same member organization.
    The Exchange believes that this proposed change is also equitable
and not unfairly discriminatory because it would result in a rate being
applied to an SLP that does not qualify for the higher SLP tiers (and
corresponding credits) that is the same as the rate applied to the non-
SLP activity of the member organization. Therefore, an SLP's
transactions that add liquidity would not be subject to a price that is
inferior to that of the non-SLP transactions of the same member
organization. The proposed change is also equitable and not unfairly
discriminatory because it would eliminate the potential for this
inferior SLP pricing that resulted from a pricing change that became
effective October 1, 2012, through which the Exchange introduced the
$0.0017 and $0.0018 rates in the Price List for non-SLP activity of a
member organization that adds liquidity.\17\ Prior to the introduction
of these two rates, the non-SLP rate for adding liquidity was $0.0015,
which is the same as the base SLP credit rate. The proposed change is
also equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because SLP volume is
counted when determining whether a member organization has achieved the
non-SLP pricing thresholds that correspond to the rates introduced in
October 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See supra note 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed change would not
result in any unnecessary burden on competition. Instead, the Exchange
believes that the proposed change will eliminate a disincentive to
participation as an SLP, and therefore prevent decreased levels of
liquidity, by resulting in a rate being applied to an SLP that does not
qualify for the higher SLP tiers (and corresponding credits) that is
the same as the rate applied to the non-SLP activity of the member
organization when adding liquidity.
    For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is
consistent with the Act.

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

    In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,\18\ the Exchange
does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden
on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of
the purposes of the Act. Rather, the Exchange believes that the
proposed change will eliminate a disincentive to participation as an
SLP, and therefore prevent decreased levels of liquidity, by resulting
in a rate being applied to an SLP that does not qualify for the higher
SLP tiers (and corresponding credits) that is the same as the rate
applied to the non-SLP activity of the member organization when adding
liquidity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange notes that the potential for this inferior pricing is
the result of a pricing change that became effective October 1, 2012,
through which the Exchange introduced the $0.0017 and $0.0018 rates in
the Price List for non-SLP activity of a member organization that adds
liquidity.\19\ Prior to October 2012 it was not possible for an SLP to
receive a rate for adding liquidity that was inferior to the rate
applicable to non-SLP member organizations, even if the SLP failed to
satisfy the percentage quoting requirement or the monthly volume
requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See supra note 11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly
competitive market in which market participants can readily favor
competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be
excessive. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually
review, and consider adjusting, its fees and credits to remain
competitive with other exchanges. For the reasons described above, the
Exchange believes that the proposed rule change reflects this
competitive environment.

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

    The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A) \20\ of the Act and subparagraph (f)(2) of Rule
19b-4 \21\ thereunder, because it establishes a due, fee, or other
charge imposed by NYSE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \21\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of

investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If
the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute
proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B) \22\ of the Act to determine
whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSE-2013-35 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSE-2013-35. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email 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 Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office 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-2013-35 and should be
submitted on or before July 8, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-14255 Filed 6-14-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 33 (Friday, February 16, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7029-7030]
[FR Doc No: 2018-03247]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. CP17-441-000, CP17-441-001]

Northwest Pipeline LLC; Notice of Availability of the
Environmental Assessment for the Proposed North Seattle Lateral Upgrade
Project

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) for the North
Seattle Lateral Upgrade Project, proposed by Northwest Pipeline LLC
(Northwest) in the above-referenced docket. Northwest requests
authorization to replace approximately 5.9 miles of 8-inch-diameter
natural gas pipeline with 20-inch-diameter pipeline in Snohomish
County, Washington. According to Northwest, the North Seattle Lateral
Upgrade Project would increase service reliability and enable Northwest
to provide an incremental 159,299 dekatherms per day of firm capacity
to serve Puget Sound Energy.
    The EA assesses the potential environmental effects of the
construction and operation of the North Seattle Lateral Upgrade Project
in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA). The FERC staff concludes that approval of the
proposed project, with appropriate mitigating measures, would not
constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality
of the human environment.
    The proposed North Seattle Lateral Upgrade Project would consist of
the following facilities:
     Replace 5.9-miles of 8-inch-diameter pipeline with 20-
inch-diameter pipeline;
     rebuild the existing North Seattle/Everett meter station
in order to accommodate the increased delivery capacity of the North
Seattle Lateral;
     abandon and relocate approximately 0.1 mile of 16-inch-
diameter pipeline;
     relocate an existing 8-inch pig launcher and a 20-inch pig
receiver \1\ to project milepost 7.76; and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A ``pig'' is a tool that the pipeline company inserts into
and pushes through the pipeline for cleaning the pipeline,
conducting internal inspections, or other purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     replace an existing 8-inch mainline valve with a 20-inch
valve.
    The FERC staff mailed copies of the EA to federal, state, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials; Native
American tribes; potentially affected landowners and other interested
individuals and groups; and newspapers and libraries in the project
area. In addition, the EA is available for public viewing on the FERC's
website (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. A limited number of
copies of the EA are available for distribution and public inspection
at: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Public Reference Room, 888
First Street NE, Room 2A, Washington, DC 20426,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Any person wishing to comment on the EA may do so. Your comments
should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable
alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts.
The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. To
ensure that the Commission has the opportunity to consider your
comments prior to making its decision on this project, it is important
that we receive your comments in Washington, DC on or before March 13,
2018.
    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to file
your comments to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the
project docket number (CP17-441-000 and

CP17-441-001) with your submission. The Commission encourages
electronic filing of comments and has expert staff available to assist
you at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected].
    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the link to
Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for submitting brief,
text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You can also file your comments electronically using the
eFiling feature on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under the
link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments
in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your
submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking
on ``eRegister.'' You must select the type of filing you are making. If
you are filing a comment on a particular project, please select
``Comment on a Filing''; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC
20426.
    Any person seeking to become a party to the proceeding must file a
motion to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214).\2\ Only intervenors have the
right to seek rehearing of the Commission's decision. The Commission
grants affected landowners and others with environmental concerns
intervenor status upon showing good cause by stating that they have a
clear and direct interest in this proceeding which no other party can
adequately represent. Simply filing environmental comments will not
give you intervenor status, but you do not need intervenor status to
have your comments considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See the previous discussion on the methods for filing
comments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. Click on the
eLibrary link, click on ``General Search,'' and enter the docket number
excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., CP17-
441). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
[email protected] or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. 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.

    Dated: February 12, 2018.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-03247 Filed 2-15-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: December 10, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 236)]
[Notices]
[Page 69727]
[DOCID:fr10de07-118]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Denial of Motor Vehicle Defect Petition

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Denial of petition for a defect investigation.

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

SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the reasons for the denial of a
petition submitted pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 30162 by Mr. Richard H.
McSwain of McSwain Engineering Inc. to NHTSA's Office of Defects
Investigation (ODI), received June 29, 2007, requesting that the agency
commence a proceeding to determine the existence of a defect related to
motor vehicle safety with respect to the manual seatback recliner
mechanism in model year 1989-1992 Ford Probe vehicles (subject
vehicles). After a review of the petition and other information, NHTSA
has concluded that further expenditure of the agency's investigative
resources on the issues raised by the petition does not appear to be
warranted. The agency accordingly has denied the petition. The petition
is hereinafter identified as DP07-001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Steve Chan, Safety Defects
Engineer, Defects Assessment Division, Office of Defects Investigation,
NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590. Telephone:
(202) 366-8537.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 29, 2007, NHTSA received a petition
from Mr. Richard H. McSwain of McSwain Engineering Inc., requesting
that the agency investigate the failure of the seatback recliner
mechanisms in the subject vehicles. The petition is based on an
examination of a passenger side front seat recliner mechanism from a
subject vehicle involved in a multi-vehicle collision, of an exemplar
seat, as well as mechanical testing of a seat from a subject vehicle.
The petitioner identified a failure mode involving bypass of the
seatback stop pin (inside the recliner mechanism) during forward
movement of the seatback, such as when entering and exiting the rear
seat. The petition stated that stop pin bypass allows the recliner
mechanism sector gear to over-travel with respect to the pawl. Return
of the seatback to the upright position may then bend the first tooth
of the pawl, resulting in a false or partial engagement of the sector
and pawl teeth. This false engagement condition is transmitted to the
opposing recliner mechanism via a mechanical communication cable.
According to the petition, the ultimate result is the inability of the
recliner mechanism to support the seatback during a collision event.
The petitioner concluded that the stop pin bypass that initiated the
failure mode is a result of inadequate height of the pin and the
resulting inadequate contact between the pin and seatback stop.
    The Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 207 ``Seating
Systems,'' specifies that seats in passenger cars, multipurpose
passenger vehicles, trucks, and buses must meet certain static force
test requirements. However, for seats that hinge on folding seatbacks,
the restraining device, once engaged, shall not release when a force
equal to twenty times the weight of the seatback is applied through the
center of gravity for the seat in the direction the seat is facing. It
is not uncommon to see the seatbacks of new vehicles moved from their
initial positions after a FMVSS simulated vehicular collision.
    The identified failure mode may be the result of progressive wear
and tear of the seatback stop pin, the seatback stop, and other seat
components in vehicles that are, on average, 17 years old. Available
data do not suggest that this has occurred with a notable frequency.
ODI reviewed its consumer complaint data received over the last
nineteen years and found no complaints of seatback collapse (with or
without a vehicle collision) in the subject vehicles.
    In view of the foregoing, and considering the advanced age of the
subject vehicles, it is unlikely that NHTSA would issue an order for
the notification and remedy of the alleged defect as defined by the
petitioner at the conclusion of the investigation requested in the
petition. The statutory requirement that the manufacturer provide a
free remedy does not apply if the vehicle was bought by the first
purchaser more than 10 calendar years before an order is issued.
Therefore, in view of the need to allocate and prioritize NHTSA's
limited resources to best accomplish the agency's safety mission, the
petition is denied.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 30162(d); delegations of authority at CFR
1.50 and 501.8.

    Issued on: December 4, 2007.
Daniel C. Smith,
Associate Administrator for Enforcement.
[FR Doc. E7-23853 Filed 12-7-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


Page 1 of 6 IUR Petition Review Report April 17, 2005 CASRNs and TSCA Inventory Chemical Names: 67701 03 5 fatty acids, C16 18 68308 53 2 fatty acids, soya Petitioners and Petition Docket Numbers: Keller and Heckman OPPT 2004 0071 The Soap and Detergent Association ( SDA) OPPT 2004 0006 Note: The petitions contained additional chemicals. These additional chemicals are addressed in other petition review reports.

Summary of Decision: The petition review group recommends a denial for this petition as EPA has a current interest in the processing and use information collected under the Inventory Update Reporting rule ( IUR) ( see 40 CFR Part 710) for fatty acids, C16 18 ( CASRN 67701 03 5) and fatty acids, soya ( CASRN 68308 53 2). This recommendation is based, in part, on the determination by the petition review group that there is a direct application of the IUR processing and use information to complement data collected by or identified for use under the HPV Challenge Program. See Considerations A, C, D, and E.

Background: EPA received two petitions requesting that fatty acids, C16 18 ( CASRN 67701 03 5) and fatty acids, soya ( CASRN 68308 53 2) be added to the 40 CFR 710.46( b)( 2)( iv) list of specific chemical substances which are exempt from the reporting of industrial processing and use and commercial/ consumer use information required by 40 CFR 710.52( c)( 4). The chemical substances included on this " partial exemption" list are substances for which EPA has previously determined that there is a low current interest in the IUR processing and use information. However, as stated in the preamble to the amendment to the IUR rule promulgated on January 7, 2003 ( 68 FR 854), "... the need for processing and use information ... changes over time. The inclusion of a chemical substance under this partial exemption is not based on the potential risks of a chemical. This partial exemption is solely intended to provide a tool to assist the Agency in better managing the collection of processing and use information..." and is also " based on the Agency's current need for collecting IURA processing and use information." ( 68 FR 855) Additionally, the preamble states, " In determining whether there is low current interest in IURA processing and use information related to a specific chemical substance, EPA will look to the specific circumstances surrounding the chemical in question, and may use one or more of the considerations identified below, and/ or considerations not identified below, to make an informed decision." The considerations used by EPA in reviewing this petition and an analysis of how those considerations relate to the chemicals identified in this petition are set forth below.

Discussion: The petition review group considered information submitted with the petitions, as well as other information including ( but not limited to): whether the petition substances are 1See the attached list of acronyms at the end of this report.

Page 2 of 6 included in TRI, IRIS, or IARC; OECD HPV SIDS program status; HPV Challenge Program status; and their inclusion in other regulatory programs administered by EPA. 1 The petition from SDA ( docket number OPPT 2004 0006) stated that these two chemicals are included as part of larger categories under the OECD/ ICCA HPV Chemicals initiative in order to help meet objectives of minimizing testing and costs and completing assessments earlier, and to ensure the data summaries for the categories were as robust as possible. SDA further states that the presence of the chemicals in the categories " does not imply a concern or high interest for these substances, but rather that existing data for these substances could be used to support the characterizations of other substances in the category." The petitioner requested that these two substances be granted a partial exemption on the basis that " HPV chemical program sponsorship does not indicate an ongoing interest in processing and use data and that these substances should not have been removed from the initial partial exemption list on that basis." Despite the statements in the SDA petition, none of these chemical substances were ever included on the initial partial exemption list. Additionally, as discussed in the document " Methodology Used for the Initial Selection of Chemicals for the Inventory Update Rule Amendments ( IURA) ` Low Current Interest' Partial Reporting Exemption," because sponsorship under the HPV Challenge Program will result in the availability of hazard screening information, EPA did not consider these chemicals to be of low current interest for purposes of the reporting of IUR processing and use information.

The petition from SDA did not link information furnished in the petition to specific considerations cited in 40 CFR 710.46( b)( 2)( ii), but provided general statements as described previously. Such general statements alone are of limited use in establishing a rationale for adding a chemical to the IUR partial exemption list.

The petition from Keller and Heckman ( docket number OPPT 2004 0071) did link information in their petition to specific considerations cited in 40 CFR 710.46( b)( 2)( ii). This information is included in the discussion below.

Consideration A: Production volume.

The petition review group found that there was at least one site reporting to the 2002 IUR with a production volume for each of the two substances of 300,000 pounds or greater.

Consideration B: The substance's chemical and physical properties or potential for persistence, bioaccumulation, health effects, or environmental effects.

The petition from Keller and Heckman included excerpts from the Kirk Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology to address Consideration B for these two substances. The excerpts from Kirk Othmer were for broad categories such as " Fats and Fatty Oils" and offered little information 2Risk is composed of hazard and exposure. In order to screen for potential risk in the U. S., both hazard data and exposure related data relative to U. S. situations are needed. Exposure is based upon manufacturing, processing, and use scenarios, all of which change over time as technology and other societal effects change. The changing nature of exposure scenarios means the potential risks associated with a chemical can also change, and therefore the collection of exposure related information over time is fundamental to identifying potential risks. ( See 68 FR 848, 852 for further discussion)

3For additional information on uses of IUR processing and use information, see IURA Data Use Plan, located in EPA's electronic docket OPPT 2002 0054, item number 0261.

Page 3 of 6 specific to the individual substances. The petition from the SDA did not address this consideration.

Consideration C: The information needs of EPA, other federal agencies, tribes, states, and local governments, as well as members of the public.

The petition from Keller and Heckman reported that neither substance has been the subject of information collection requirements by ATSDR or the ITC; the petition from the SDA did not address this consideration. Both substances are part of EPA's HPV Challenge Program. SDA stated that the fact that these chemicals are sponsored does not indicate an ongoing interest in processing and use data for these chemicals. However, EPA's HPV Challenge Program seeks to collect and, where necessary, develop a screening level hazard data set for chemicals produced or imported in large quantities in the United States. EPA plans to screen and, as needed, further assess chemicals included under the HPV Challenge Program. For this purpose, the IUR processing and use information is needed by EPA to put the hazard data into context, complementing the HPV Challenge Program submission by providing EPA with exposure related information. 2 IUR reporting is needed at least once and, potentially, periodically thereafter to more accurately and realistically gauge potential exposure and provide information needed for screening, assessing, and managing exposures and risk. Other important uses of the reported information, even for low hazard chemicals, may include comparative exposure analyses, identification of safer substitutes, or pollution prevention investigations. 3 Consideration D: The availability of other complementary risk screening information.

To address this consideration, the petition from Keller and Heckman noted that these two substances are similar to substances that are already partially exempt, differing in the composition of the fatty acids. It was not clear how this similarity related to complementary risk screening information.

Since both substances are included in the HPV Challenge Program and are sponsored through the ICCA HPV Initiative ( as described in the SDA petition), additional hazard data may become available. However, effective risk screening and risk management require both exposure information and hazard information. The availability of hazard information for these substances coupled with the IUR processing and use information as an indicator of potential exposure will facilitate a more effective screening of this and other substances based on either exposure or risk. Page 4 of 6 Consideration E: The availability of comparable processing and use information.

The petition from Keller and Heckman indicated that the processing and use of these substances is well characterized, and included excerpts from the Kirk Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology. The excerpts, however, are from 1984, raising a concern for the timeliness and usefulness of the exposure related data presented therein. Since exposure scenarios change based on uses and available technology, information quickly becomes outdated and of limited use. The IUR information is needed to provide current processing and use data for the United States. Additionally, IUR data encompass information not included in the Kirk Othmer Encyclopedia, such as the relative importance of each use, and therefore the excerpts are not judged to provide comparable processing and use data. For instance, the IUR collects data on the function of the chemical in the industrial processing and use category, the NAICS code associated with the use, the amount of the chemical going to each use category, and the number of potentially exposed workers and the number of sites associated with each use. For commercial and consumer uses, the IUR collects data on the amount of the chemical in various use categories, the concentration of the chemical in the use category, and the likelihood of inclusion in products intended for children. Furthermore, IUR information is updated every four years, is quantitative, and is specific to the United States.

Consideration F: Whether the potential risks for the chemical substance are adequately managed by EPA or another agency or authority.

The petition from Keller and Heckman indicated that EPA, NIOSH, OSHA, CPSC, and FDA all regulate the manufacture and use of these petition substances, but did not provide information specific to individual chemicals except for FDA regulations. The petition review group does not consider that the FDA regulations cover issues under the purview of the other listed regulatory agencies and therefore do not necessarily address all of the potential risks associated with the chemical substance. Sufficient evidence to state that potential risks of the chemicals substances are adequately managed was therefore not included in the petition.

The SDA petition did not identify or discuss any risk management actions taken by EPA or another agency or authority with respect to the petitioned chemical( s). The petition did not explain why the downstream processing and use information should be of low current interest in light of any such risk management actions.

Sources Searched: ( Note: These sources are typically searched or reviewed to gather information presented in the petition review report.)

American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists ( ACGIH) Threshold Limit Values ( TLV TWA). 2003. ACGIH, Cincinnati OH. pp. 12 61.

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry ( ATSDR) ToxFAQsTM ( Frequently asked questions about contaminants found at hazardous waste sites). Available at http:// www. atsdr. cdc. gov/ toxfaq. html California Air Resources Board List of Toxic Air Contaminant Fact Sheets, available at http:// arbis. arb. ca. gov/ toxics/ tac/ toctbl. htm Page 5 of 6 California EPA, Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986: List of chemicals known to the State to cause cancer or reproductive toxicity. Listing as of Nov. 14, 2003. Available at http:// www. oehha. ca. gov/ prop65/ CRNR_ notices/ list_ changes/ 111403lsta. html International Agency of Research on Cancer ( IARC) Overall Evaluations of Carcinogenicity to Humans. Available at http:// monographs. iarc. fr/ monoeval/ crthall. html Interagency Testing Committee ( ITC) Priority Testing List. Available at http:// tsca itc. syrres. com/ Chemicals/

National Advisory Committee Acute Exposure Guideline Levels ( AEGLs). Available at http:// www. epa. gov/ oppt/ aegl/ index. htm Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development ( OECD) Integrated HPV Database, http:// cs3 hq. oecd. org/ scripts/ hpv/ index. asp United Nations Environment Programme ( UNEP) persistent organic pollutants ( POPs), available at http:// www. chem. unep. ch/ pops/ default. html United Nations Environment Programme ( UNEP) Ozone Secretariat, Summary Control Measures, available at http:// www. unep. org/ ozone/ Treaties_ and_ Ratification/ 2B_ montreal_ protocol. asp U. S. EPA Clean Air Act ( CAA) Hazardous Air Pollutants ( HAPs). Available in the Clean Air Act, section 112( b), available at http:// www. epa. gov/ air/ caa/ caa112. txt U. S. EPA. Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know Act Section 313, List of Toxic Chemicals. 2001. Office of Environmental Information, EPA 260 B 01 001, available at http:// www. epa. gov/ tri/ chemical/ chemlist2001. pdf U. S. EPA HPV ( High Production Volume) Challenge Program and Voluntary Children's Chemical Evaluation Program ( VCCEP) Web sites under the EPA Chemical Right to Know Initiative, http:// www. epa. gov/ chemrtk U. S. EPA Integrated Risk Information System ( IRIS) Substance List. Available at http:// www. epa. gov/ iris/ subst/ index. html U. S. EPA. National Recommended Water Quality Criteria: 2002. Office of Water. EPA 822 R 02 047. Available at http:// www. epa. gov/ waterscience/ pc/ revcom. pdf U. S. EPA. 2004 Edition of the Drinking Water Standards and Health Advisories. Office of Water. EPA 822 R 04 005. Available at http:// www. epa. gov/ waterscience/ drinking/ standards/ dwstandards. pdf U. S. EPA Substance Registry System ( SRS). Available at http:// www. epa. gov/ srs/

U. S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration ( OSHA) Permissible Exposure Limits ( PELs), available at http:// www. osha. gov/ SLTC/ pel/ index. html List of Acronyms Page 6 of 6 ACGIH American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists AEGL Acute Exposure Guideline Level ARB Air Resources Board ATSDR Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry CAA Clean Air Act CASRN Chemical Abstract Service Registry Number CICAD Concise International Chemical Assessment Document CPSC Consumer Product Safety Commission EHC Environmental Health Criteria EPA Environmental Protection Agency EU European Union FDA Food and Drug Administration FFDCA Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act GRAS Generally Recognized as Safe HAP Hazardous Air Pollutant HPV High Production Volume HSDB Hazardous Substances Databank IARC International Agency of Research on Cancer ICCA International Council of Chemical Associations IFCS International Forum on Chemical Safety IPCS International Programme on Chemical Safety IRIS Integrated Risk Information System IRPTC International Register of Potentially Toxic Chemicals ITC Interagency Testing Committee IUCLID International Uniform Chemical Information Database IUR Inventory Update Reporting Rule IURA Inventory Update Reporting Rule Amendment NAICS North American Industry Classification System NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health OECD Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development OECD HPV SIDS or OECD HPV SIDS program OECD/ SIDS HPV Chemicals Programme OPP Office of Pesticide Programs OPPT Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration PEL Permissible Exposure Limit POP Persistent Organic Pollutant SIAM SIDS Initial Assessment Meeting SIAP SIDS Initial Assessment Profile SIAR SIDS Initial Assessment Report SIDS Screening Information Data Set SRS Substance Registry System TLV TWA Threshold Limit Value Time Weighted Average TRI Toxics Release Inventory TSCA Toxic Substances Control Act UNEP United Nations Environment Programme VCCEP Voluntary Children's Chemical Evaluation Program


PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT SUBMISSION Please read the instructions before completing this form. For additional forms or assistance in completing this form, contact your agency's Paperwork Clearance Officer. Send two copies of this form, the collection instrument to be reviewed, the Supporting Statement and any additional documentation to: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Docket Library, Room 10102, 725 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20503.

1. Agency/ Subagency originating request U. S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory 2. OMB control number b. X None a__ __ __ __  __ __ __ __ 2 0 8 0 3. Type of information collection ( check one) a. X New collection b. G Revision of a currently approved collection c. G Extension of a currently approved collection d. G Reinstatement, without change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired e. G Reinstatement, with change, of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired f. G Existing collection in use without an OMB control number 4. Type of review requested ( check one) a. X Regular b. G Emergency  Approval requested by: / / c. G Delegated 5. Small entities Will this information collection have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? G Yes X No For b f, note item A2 of Supporting Statement Instructions 6. Requested expiration date a. X Three years from approval date b. G Other Specify: / /___

7. Title Health Effects of Particulate Matter and Co pollutant Exposures Near the El Paso/ Juarez Border Crossings 8. Agency form number( s) ( If applicable) EPA ICR No. 1940.01 9. Keywords Clean Air Act, Public Health, Respiratory and pulmonary disease 10. Abstract This study will examine the respiratory health effects of mobile source air pollutants school children living in a metropolitan area along the US Mexico border. El Paso, Texas was selected because of heavy traffic volume and wintertime meteorological conditions in a large metropolitan area. Parents of children enrolled in the fourth and fifth grades of the El Paso Independent School District will be requested to complete an 8 page children's health questionnaire. The questionnaire will be provided in both English and Spanish. Those children who received parental permission on a returned questionnaire will be requested to complete a simple lung function measurement. Air quality data will be obtained from ambient air measurements that are routinely conducted by state and local agencies. Supplemental air quality measurements will be conducted by EPA at the schools at the time of the lung function measurements.

11. Affected public ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X")

a. P Individuals or households d. Farms b. Business or other for profit e. Federal Government c. Not for profit institutions f. X State, Local or Tribal Government 12. Obligation to respond ( Mark primary with " P" and all others that apply with " X")

a. X Voluntary b. G Required to obtain or retain benefits c. G Mandatory 13. Annual reporting and recordkeeping hour burden a. Number of respondents 13,400 b. Total annual responses 13,400 1. Percentage of these responses collected electronically 100% c. Total hours requested 5,145 d. Current OMB inventory 0 e. Difference 5,145 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program Change 5,145 2. Adjustment 0 14. Annual reporting and recordkeeping cost burden ( in thousands of dollars)

a. Total annualized capital/ startup costs 0 b. Total annual costs ( O& M) 0 c. Total annualized cost requested 0 d. Current OMB inventory 0 e. Difference 0 f. Explanation of difference 1. Program change 0 2. Adjustment 0 15. Purpose of information collection ( Mark Primary With " P" and all others that apply with " X") a. __ Application for benefits e. __ Program planning or management b. __ Program evaluation f. _ P_ Research c. __ General purpose statistics g. __ Regulatory or compliance d. __ Audit 16. Frequency of recordkeeping or reporting ( check all that apply) a. Q Recordkeeping b. Q Third party disclosure c. X Reporting 1. Q On occasion 2. Q Weekly 3. Q Monthly 4. Q Quarterly 5. Q Semi annually 6. Q Annually 7. Q Biannually 8. X Other ( describe) Once 17. Statistical methods Does this information collection employ statistical methods? X Yes No 18. Agency contact ( person who can best answer questions regarding the content of this submission) Name: Dr. Melissa Gonzales Phone: 919 966 7549 OMB 83 I 10/ 95 19. Certification for Paperwork Reduction Act Submissions On behalf of this Federal agency, 1 certify that the collection of information encompassed by this request complies with' 5 CFR 1320.9.

NOTE: The text of 5 CFR 1320.9, and the related provisions of 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3), appear at the end of the instructions. The certification is to be made with reference to those regulatory provisions as set forth in the instructions.

The following is a summary of the topics, regarding the proposed collection of information, that the certification covers:

( a) It is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions;

( b) It avoids unnecessary duplication;

( c) It reduces burden on small entities;

( d) It uses plain, coherent, and unambiguous terminology that is understandable to respondents;

( e) Its implementation will be consistent and compatible with current reporting and recordkeeping practices;

( f) It indicates the retention periods for recordkeeping requirements;

( g) It informs respondents of the information called for under 5 CFR 1320.8( b)( 3): ( I) Why the information is being collected' ( ii) Use of information; ( iii) Burden estimate; ( iv) Nature of response ( voluntary, required for a benefit, or mandatory); ( v) Nature and extent of confidentiality; and ( vi) Need to display currently valid OMB control number;

( h) It was developed by an office that has planned and allocated resources for the efficient and effective management and use of the information to be collected ( see note in Item 19 of the instructions);

( I) It uses effective and efficient statistical survey methodology; and ( j) It makes appropriate use of information technology.

If you are unable to certify compliance with any of these provisions, identify the item below and explain the reason in Item 18 of the Supporting Statement.

Signature of Program Official Hillel Koren, Director Human Studies Division National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory EPA Office of Research and Development Date Signature of Senior Official or Designee Oscar Morales, Director Collection Strategies Division Office of Information Collection Office of Environmental Information Date OMB 83 I 10/ 95


[Federal Register: October 10, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 198)]
[Notices]
[Page 60303]
[DOCID:fr10oc08-91]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-1797-DR]

Alabama; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of Alabama (FEMA-1797-DR), dated September 26,
2008, and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: September 26, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated September 26, 2008, the President declared a major disaster under
the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5207 (the Stafford Act), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of Alabama resulting from severe storms and flooding associated with
Hurricane Ike during the period of September 12-14, 2008, is of
sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster
declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5207 (the Stafford Act).
Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster exists in the State
of Alabama.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the
designated areas, Hazard Mitigation throughout the State, and any
other forms of assistance under the Stafford Act that you deem
appropriate. Direct Federal assistance is authorized. Consistent
with the requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any
Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation
will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. Federal
funds provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance also
will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs, except
for any particular projects that are eligible for a higher Federal
cost-sharing percentage under the FEMA Public Assistance Pilot
Program instituted pursuant to 6 U.S.C. 777. If Other Needs
Assistance under Section 408 of the Stafford Act is later requested
and warranted, Federal funding under that program also will be
limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
to the extent allowable under the Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, W. Michael Moore, of FEMA is
appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared
disaster.
    The following areas of the State of Alabama have been designated as
adversely affected by this declared major disaster:

    Baldwin and Mobile Counties for Public Assistance.
    All counties within the State of Alabama are eligible to apply
for assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

R. David Paulison,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
 [FR Doc. E8-24076 Filed 10-9-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register: February 4, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 22)]
[Notices]
[Page 6028-6030]
[DOCID:fr04fe09-40]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-8769-1]

Proposed Consent Decree, Clean Air Act Citizen Suit

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Consent Decree; Request for Public Comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 113(g) of the Clean Air Act, as
amended (``CAA'' or ``Act''), 42 U.S.C. 7413(g), notice is hereby given
of a proposed consent decree to address a lawsuit filed by
Environmental Integrity Project, Community Power & Development
Association, Inc., Public Citizen's Texas Office, and Refinery Reform
Campaign (collectively ``Plaintiffs'') in the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia: Environmental Integrity Project, et
al. v. Johnson, No.1:09-cv-00087 PLF, (D.D.C.). Plaintiffs filed a
deadline suit to compel the Administrator to respond to an
administrative petition seeking EPA's objection to a CAA Title V
operating permit issued by the Texas Commission on Environmental
Quality to Premcor Refining Group, Inc. (``Premcor'') for a refinery in
Port Arthur, Texas. Under the terms of the proposed consent decree, EPA
has agreed to respond to the petition by April 30, 2009.

DATES: Written comments on the proposed consent decree must be received
by March 6, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OGC-2009-0049, online at www.regulations.gov (EPA's preferred method);
by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>by mail to EPA Docket Center,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; or by hand delivery or courier to
EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. Comments on a disk or CD-ROM should be
formatted in Word or ASCII file, avoiding the use of special characters
and any form of encryption, and may be mailed to the mailing address
above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leslie Darman, Office of General
Counsel (Mail Code 2355A), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone: (202) 564-
5452; fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Additional Information About the Proposed Consent Decree

    This proposed consent decree would resolve a lawsuit seeking a
response to an administrative petition to object to a CAA Title V
permit issued by the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality to
Premcor for a refinery in Port Arthur, Texas. Under the terms of the
proposed consent decree, EPA has agreed to respond to the petition by
April 30, 2009. In addition, the proposed consent decree states that
within fifteen (15) business days EPA shall deliver notice of such
action to the Office of the Federal Register for prompt publication.
    For a period of thirty (30) days following the date of publication
of this notice, the Agency will accept written comments relating to the
proposed consent decree from persons who were not named as parties or
intervenors to the litigation in question. EPA or the Department of
Justice may withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed consent decree
if the comments disclose facts or considerations that indicate that
such consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent
with the requirements of the Act. Unless EPA or the Department of
Justice determines, based on any comment submitted, that consent to
this consent decree should be withdrawn, the terms of the decree will
be affirmed.

II. Additional Information About Commenting on the Proposed Consent
Decree

A. How Can I Get A Copy of the Consent Decree?

    The official public docket for this action (identified by Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2009-0049) contains a copy of the proposed consent
decree. The official public docket is available for public viewing at
the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the EPA Docket
Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington,
DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the OEI Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    An electronic version of the public docket is available through
www.regulations.gov. You may use the www.regulations.gov to submit or
view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the
official public docket, and to access those documents in the public
docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select
``search,'' then key in the appropriate docket identification number.
    It is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments,
whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available
for public viewing online at www.regulations.gov without change, unless
the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information claimed as CBI
and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute is not
included in the official public docket or in the electronic public
docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material, including
copyrighted material contained in a public comment, will not be placed
in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in
printed, paper form in the official public docket. Although not all
docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access
any of the publicly available docket materials through the EPA Docket
Center.

B. How and to Whom Do I Submit Comments?

    You may submit comments as provided in the ADDRESSES section.
Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified
comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period
will be marked ``late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late
comments.
    If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name, mailing address, and an e-mail address or other
contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or
CD-ROM you submit. This ensures that you can be identified as the
submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further
information on the substance of your comment. Any identifying or
contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included
as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket,
and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot
read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you
for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
    Use of the www.regulations.gov Web site to submit comments to EPA
electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. The
electronic public docket system is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's electronic mail
(e-mail) system is not an ``anonymous access'' system. If you send an
e-mail comment directly to the Docket without going through
www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address is automatically captured and
included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public

docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

    Dated: January 16, 2009.
Richard B. Ossias,
Associate General Counsel.
[FR Doc. E9-2341 Filed 2-3-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 45 (Wednesday, March 8, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14291-14294]
[FR Doc No: 2023-04736]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 81

[EPA-R09-OAR-2022-0953; FRL-10502-02-R9]

Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes;
California; Coachella Valley Ozone Nonattainment Area; Reclassification
to Extreme

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is granting requests by the California Air Resources Board
(CARB) to reclassify the Coachella Valley ozone nonattainment area in
California from ``Severe-15'' to ``Extreme'' for the 2008 ozone
national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). This action does not
reclassify any areas of Indian country within the boundaries of the
Coachella Valley 2008 ozone nonattainment area. The new applicable
attainment date for the Coachella Valley ozone nonattainment area for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS will be the date by which attainment can be
achieved as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than July 20,
2032. In connection with the reclassification, the EPA is approving a
deadline of no later than 18 months from the effective date of this
rule for submittal of revisions to the Coachella Valley portion of the
California state implementation plan (SIP) to meet additional
requirements for Extreme ozone nonattainment areas. Lastly, the EPA is
extending our previous limited approval of the motor vehicle emissions
budgets to new budgets to be developed as part of a SIP meeting the
Extreme area requirements for the Coachella Valley.

DATES: This rule is effective April 7, 2023.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2022-0953. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available through https://www.regulations.gov, or please
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section for additional availability information. If you need assistance
in a language other than English or if you are a person with a
disability who needs a reasonable accommodation at no cost to you,
please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Khoi Nguyen, Planning & Analysis
Branch (AIR-2-2), EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Proposed Action
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. EPA Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Proposed Action

    On January 11, 2023, the EPA proposed to grant a request by the
State of California to reclassify the Riverside County (Coachella
Valley), CA ozone nonattainment (``Coachella Valley'') area from
Severe-15 to Extreme for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.\1\ Our January 11, 2023
proposed rule provides background information on the EPA's promulgation
of the 2008 ozone NAAQS and the area designations and classifications
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 88 FR 1543.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule describes CARB's requests for reclassification of
the Coachella Valley from Severe-15 to Extreme for the 2008 ozone NAAQS
and the basis for our proposed approval of the requests. The proposed
rule also describes the Extreme area requirements applicable to the
Coachella Valley nonattainment area following the EPA's approval of the
voluntary reclassification requests and proposes a deadline of no later
than 18 months from the effective date of reclassification for
submittal of revisions to the Coachella Valley portion of the
California SIP that address the Extreme ozone nonattainment area
requirements. The proposed rule further describes the EPA's proposal to
continue to limit the duration of our approval of the budgets in the
2016 Coachella Valley Ozone SIP until we find revised budgets developed
for the Extreme area plan to be adequate.\2\ Lastly, the proposed rule
clarifies that this action would not reclassify any areas of Indian
country within the Coachella Valley. Please see the proposed rule for
further detail concerning these topics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The EPA previously approved motor vehicle emissions budgets
for the Coachella Valley for the 2008 ozone NAAQS in 2020. 85 FR
57714 (September 16, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Today, we are taking final action to grant CARB's requests to
reclassify the Coachella Valley nonattainment area to Extreme
nonattainment for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Pursuant to the
reclassification, the Coachella Valley nonattainment area will be
required to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS as expeditiously as
practicable, but no later than July 20, 2032. We are also taking final
action to establish a schedule of no later than 18 months from the
effective date of this final action for CARB to submit SIP revisions
addressing Extreme area requirements for the Coachella Valley and to
submit revisions to the title V operating permit rules for the
Coachella Valley. Lastly, we are finalizing our action to continue to
limit the duration of our approval of the budgets in the 2016 Coachella
Valley Ozone SIP until we find revised budgets developed for the
Extreme area plan to be adequate. As explained in the proposal, this
action does not reclassify any areas of Indian country within the
Coachella Valley.

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    The EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period.
During this period, the EPA received two comments from private
individuals. The full text of these comments is available in the docket
for this rulemaking.
    The first commenter generally supported our proposed action and
indicated that the action will help to improve air quality by setting
stricter standards for the region. We acknowledge the commenter's
support of the EPA's proposed action and agree that reclassification of
the area is appropriate for reasons cited by the commenter. As
described below, we are finalizing the action as proposed.
    The second commenter also supported the rulemaking action and asked
that the EPA, if it has the authority to do so, insert additional
requirements that further limit road transportation within the airshed
or require the expansion of zero-emission public-transit networks
within the Coachella Valley to further offset and reduce transportation
emissions. The commenter also asserted that the state should be
prohibited from issuing any new construction and/or operating permits
for title V sources and other regulated stationary sources in the
Coachella Valley. The EPA appreciates the commenter's support for the
proposed action. While the measures suggested in the comment are
outside of

the scope of this rulemaking action and outside of the scope of the
EPA's statutory authority, we note that the purpose of the
reclassification action is to require CARB and the local air district
to develop more stringent control measures to improve air quality under
part D of title I of the CAA. The commenter may wish to raise ideas
regarding specific control measures during the state plan development
process.

III. EPA Action

    Pursuant to CAA section 181(b)(3), the EPA is granting a request by
the State of California to reclassify the Coachella Valley ozone
nonattainment area from Severe-15 to Extreme for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
Upon reclassification, the Coachella Valley will be required to attain
the 2008 ozone NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable, but no later than
July 20, 2032.
    In connection with the reclassification, and pursuant to our
general CAA section 301(a) authority, the EPA is establishing a
deadline of no later than 18 months from the effective date of this
action for the submittal of SIP revisions addressing the Extreme area
requirements applicable to the Coachella Valley nonattainment area.\3\
We are also establishing 18 months from the effective date of this
action as the deadline for the submittal of any corresponding
revisions, or certifications, as appropriate, to the NSR and title V
program rules that apply in the affected area.\4\ Lastly, we are
finalizing our action to continue to limit the duration of our approval
of the motor vehicle emissions budgets in the 2016 Coachella Valley
Ozone SIP until we find revised budgets developed for the Extreme area
plan to be adequate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ As described in the proposed rule, these requirements
include: a base year emissions inventory, an emissions statement
rule, a new source review (NSR) program, additional reasonably
available control technology rules for the lower Extreme area major
source threshold, a reasonably available control measures
demonstration, an attainment demonstration, a reasonable further
progress demonstration, contingency measures, an enhanced motor
vehicle inspection and maintenance program, a clean fuels fleet
program, enhanced ambient air monitoring, transportation control
strategies and measures to offset emissions increases from vehicle
miles traveled, a CAA section 185 fee program, and use of clean
fuels or advanced control technology for boilers. The proposed rule
includes more information about these requirements.
    \4\ We note that this timeline is consistent with CAA section
502(i), which provides permitting authorities 18 months to correct
problems related to administration of a title V program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This action does not reclassify any areas of Indian country. Under
the EPA's Consultation Policy, the EPA consults on a government-to-
government basis with federally recognized tribal governments when the
EPA's actions and decisions may affect tribal interests.\5\ The EPA is
currently undergoing this consultation process and any proposed
reclassification of tribal lands will be addressed in a future
rulemaking action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The EPA's Consultation Policy is available at https://www.epa.gov/tribal/epa-policy-consultation-and-coordination-indian-tribes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With this action, we are updating the designation table at 40 CFR
81.305 to identify the new attainment classification for state lands
within the Coachella Valley nonattainment area. We are also updating
the table to revise the listing for the ``Cabazon Band of Mission
Indians'' to specify the ``Cabazon Band of Cahuilla Indians,'' which
reflects the tribe's current federally recognized name.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See 88 FR 1543, 1544 n.5. See also 88 FR 2112 (January 12,
2023) (noting the change in tribal name as recognized by the Bureau
of Indian Affairs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and
13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011), this final action is not a
``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not subject to
Executive Order 12866. With respect to lands under state jurisdiction,
voluntary reclassifications under CAA section 181(b)(3) are based
solely upon requests by the state, and the EPA is required under the
CAA to grant them. These actions do not, in and of themselves, impose
any new requirements on any sectors of the economy. In addition,
because the statutory requirements are clearly defined with respect to
the differently classified areas, and because those requirements are
automatically triggered by reclassification, reclassification does not
impose a materially adverse impact under Executive Order 12866. For
these reasons, this final action is also not subject to Executive Order
13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001).
    In addition, I certify that this final action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) and that
this final action 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), because the EPA
is required to grant requests by states for voluntary
reclassifications, and such reclassifications in and of themselves do
not impose any federal intergovernmental mandate, and because tribes
are not subject to implementation plan submittal deadlines that apply
to states as a result of reclassifications.
    This final action also does not have tribal implications because it
will 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, as specified by Executive Order
13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    Executive Order 12898, ``Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations'' (59 FR
7629, Feb. 16, 1994), directs Federal agencies to identify and address
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects'' of their actions on minority populations and low-income
populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law.
The EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as ``the fair treatment and
meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income with respect to the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies.'' The EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean
that ``no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of
environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the
negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and
commercial operations or programs and policies.''
    The air agency did not evaluate environmental justice
considerations as part of its reclassification request; the CAA and
applicable implementing regulations neither prohibit nor require such
an evaluation. The EPA did not perform an EJ analysis and did not
consider EJ in this action. Due to the nature of the action being taken
here, this action is expected to have a neutral to positive impact on
the air quality of the affected area. Consideration of EJ is not
required as part of this action, and there is no information in the
record inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of achieving
environmental justice for people of color, low-income populations, and
Indigenous peoples.
    This final action also does not have federalism implications
because it does not have substantial direct effects on the states, on
the relationship between the national government and the states, nor on
the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified
in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This final
action does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the CAA.
    This final action also is not subject to Executive Order 13045,
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because the EPA interprets
Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that
concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under
section 5-501 of Executive Order 13045 has the potential to influence
the regulation.
    As this final action establishes a deadline for the submittal of
CAA required plans and information, the requirements of section 12(d)
of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15
U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This final action does not impose an
information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 8, 2023. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2) of the
CAA.)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 81

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

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

    Dated: March 2, 2023.
Martha Guzman Aceves,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends part 81,
chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 81--DESIGNATION OF AREAS FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING PURPOSES

0
1. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart C--Section 107 Attainment Status Designations

0
2. Section 81.305 is amended by revising the entry for ``Riverside
County (Coachella Valley), CA'' in the table titled ``California--2008
8-Hour Ozone NAAQS [Primary and Secondary]'' to read as follows:

Sec.  81.305  California.

* * * * *

                                       California--2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS
                                             [Primary and secondary]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Designation                          Classification
           Designated area           ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Date \1\            Type              Date \1\             Type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Riverside County (Coachella Valley),
 CA: \2\
    Riverside County (part).........  .........  Nonattainment...........     4/7/2023  Extreme.
        That portion of Riverside
         County which lies to the
         east of a line described as
         follows: Beginning at the
         Riverside-San Diego County
         boundary and running north
         along the range line common
         to Range 4 East and Range 3
         East, San Bernardino Base
         and Meridian; then east
         along the Township line
         common to Township 8 South
         and Township 7 South; then
         north along the range line
         common to Range 5 East and
         Range 4 East; then west
         along the Township line
         common to Township 6 South
         and Township 7 South to the
         southwest corner of Section
         34, Township 6 South, Range
         4 East; then north along
         the west boundaries of
         Sections 34, 27, 22, 15,
         10, and 3, Township 6
         South, Range 4 East; then
         west along the Township
         line common to Township 5
         South and Township 6 South;
         then north along the range
         line common to Range 4 East
         and Range 3 East; then west
         along the south boundaries
         of Sections 13, 14, 15, 16,
         17, and 18, Township 5
         South, Range 3 East; then
         north along the range line
         common to Range 2 East and
         Range 3 East; to the
         Riverside-San Bernardino
         County line. And that
         portion of Riverside County
         which lies to the west of a
         line described as follows:
         That segment of the
         southwestern boundary line
         of hydrologic Unit Number
         18100100 within Riverside
         County.
    Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla    .........  Nonattainment...........  ...........  Severe-15.
     Indians of the Agua Caliente
     Indian Reservation \3\.
    Augustine Band of Cahuilla        .........  Nonattainment...........  ...........  Severe-15.
     Indians \3\.
    Cabazon Band of Cahuilla Indians  .........  Nonattainment...........  ...........  Severe-15.8
     \3\.
    Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla       .........  Nonattainment...........  ...........  Severe-15.
     Indians \3\.

    Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla   .........  Nonattainment...........  ...........  Severe-15.
     Indians \3\.
    Twenty-Nine Palms Band of         .........  Nonattainment...........  ...........  Severe-15.
     Mission Indians of California
     \3\.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This date is July 20, 2012, unless otherwise noted.
\2\ Excludes Indian country located in each area, unless otherwise noted.
\3\ Includes Indian country of the tribe listed in this table located in the identified area. Information
  pertaining to areas of Indian country in this table is intended for CAA planning purposes only and is not an
  EPA determination of Indian country status or any Indian country boundary. EPA lacks the authority to
  establish Indian country land status, and is making no determination of Indian country boundaries, in this
  table.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2023-04736 Filed 3-7-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P