[Federal Register: February 26, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 38)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 8814-8817]
[DOCID:fr26fe10-7]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 67

[Docket ID FEMA-2010-0003]

Final Flood Elevation Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) and modified
BFEs are made final for the communities listed below. The BFEs and
modified BFEs are the basis for the floodplain management measures that
each community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being
already in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for
participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).

DATES: The date of issuance of the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)
showing BFEs and modified BFEs for each community. This date may be
obtained by contacting the office where the maps are available for
inspection as indicated in the table below.

ADDRESSES: The final BFEs for each community are available for
inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer of each
community. The respective addresses are listed in the table below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin C. Long, Acting Chief,
Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472,
(202) 646-2820, or (e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the modified
BFEs for each community listed. These modified elevations have been
published in newspapers of local circulation and ninety (90) days have
elapsed since that publication. The Assistant Administrator for
Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
    This final rule is issued in accordance with section 110 of the
Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part
67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone
areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
    Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to
review the proof Flood Insurance Study and FIRM available at the
address cited below for each community. The BFEs and modified BFEs are
made final in the communities listed below. Elevations at selected
locations in each community are shown.
    National Environmental Policy Act. This final rule is categorically
excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental
Consideration. An environmental impact assessment has not been
prepared.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act. As flood elevation determinations are
not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-
612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
    Regulatory Classification. This final rule is not a significant
regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR
51735.
    Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This final rule involves no
policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This final rule meets
the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67

    Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

0
Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is amended as follows:

PART 67--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 67 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR,
1979 Comp., p. 376.

Sec.  67.11  [Amended]

0
2. The tables published under the authority of Sec.  67.11 are amended
as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      * Elevation in
                                                                     feet  (NGVD)  +
                                                                    Elevation in feet
                                                                      (NAVD)   Depth in feet
           Flooding source(s)                    elevation             above ground       Communities affected
                                                                    [caret] Elevation
                                                                     in meters (MSL)
                                                                         modified

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Pope County, Arkansas, and Incorporated Areas
                                             Docket No.: FEMA-B-1028
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arkansas River.........................  At the intersection with                +323  Unincorporated Areas of
                                          the Arkansas Avenue                           Pope County.
                                          bridge.
                                         At the confluence with                  +340
                                          Lake Dardanelle.
Lake Dardanelle........................  Approximately 8.323 miles               +340  Unincorporated Areas of
                                          downstream of the                             Pope County, City of
                                          Highway 40 bridge.                            Russellville.
                                         At the intersection with                +347
                                          the Pleasant View Road
                                          bridge.
Whig Creek.............................  Approximately 5,166 feet                +330  Unincorporated Areas of
                                          from South Frankfort                          Pope County, City of
                                          Avenue.                                       Russellville.
                                         Approximately 218 feet                  +340
                                          downstream of McHenry
                                          Road.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.

[caret] Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.

                                                    ADDRESSES
City of Russellville
Maps are available for inspection at 716 North El Paso Avenue, Russellville, AR 72801.

Unincorporated Areas of Pope County
Maps are available for inspection at 420 North Hampton Avenue, Suite B, Russellville, AR 72801.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Forrest County, Mississippi, and Incorporated Areas
                                             Docket No.: FEMA-B-1016
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Black Creek............................  At the Forrest/Perry                    +140  Unincorporated Areas of
                                          county boundary.                              Forrest County.
                                         At the Lamar/Forrest                    +205
                                          county boundary.
Boggy Branch...........................  At the confluence with                  +172  Unincorporated Areas of
                                          Greens Creek.                                 Forrest County, City of
                                                                                Petal.
                                         Approximately 2,870 feet                +233
                                          upstream of Otis Lee
                                          Road.
Gordons Creek..........................  Just upstream of West                   +159  City of Hattiesburg.
                                          Street.
                                         Approximately 2,260 feet                +252
                                          upstream of Interstate
                                          59.
Greens Creek...........................  At Chappell Hill Road....               +171  Unincorporated Areas of
                                                                                Forrest County, City of
                                                                                Petal.
                                         Approximately 4,220 feet                +242
                                          upstream of Robertson
                                          Road.
Little Beaver Creek....................  Approximately 2,820 feet                +187  Unincorporated Areas of
                                          downstream of Churchwell                      Forrest County.
                                          Road.
                                         At the Lamar/Forrest                    +237
                                          county boundary.
Mixons Creek...........................  At U.S. Route 49.........               +163  City of Hattiesburg.
                                         At I-59..................               +176
                                         Approximately 120 feet                  +176
                                          upstream of I-59.
                                         Approximately 380 feet                  +176
                                          upstream of I-59.
                                         Approximately 2,080 feet                +193
                                          downstream of West 4th
                                          Street.
Mixons Creek Tributary 1...............  Approximately 2,900 feet                +197  City of Hattiesburg.
                                          upstream of Dogwood Cove.
                                         Approximately 3,800 feet                +204
                                          upstream of Dogwood Cove.
Mixons Creek Tributary 2...............  Approximately 118 feet                  +190  City of Hattiesburg.
                                          downstream of Spring
                                          Hill Drive.
                                         Approximately 1,460 feet                +208
                                          upstream of Bridges
                                          Circle.
Mixons Creek Tributary 4...............  Just upstream of Joy                    +196  City of Hattiesburg.
                                          Drive.
                                         Approximately 1.8 mile                  +283
                                          upstream of Joy Drive.
Unnamed Tributary 2....................  Approximately 111 feet                  +149  City of Petal.
                                          downstream of Hillcrest
                                          Loop.
                                         Approximately 335 feet                  +188
                                          upstream of Chandler
                                          Lane.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.
[caret] Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.
                                                    ADDRESSES
City of Hattiesburg
Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 200 Forrest Street, Hattiesburg, MS 39401.

City of Petal
Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 107 West 8th Avenue, Petal, MS 39401.
Unincorporated Areas of Forrest County
Maps are available for inspection at the Forrest County Courthouse, 629 Main Street, Hattiesburg, MS 39401.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Lamar County, Mississippi, and Incorporated Areas
                                             Docket No.: FEMA-B-1018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordons Creek..........................  At I-59..................               +252  Unincorporated Areas of
                                                                                Lamar County.
                                         Approximately 1,984 feet                +252
                                          upstream of I[dash]59.
Little Beaver Creek....................  Approximately 0.8 mile                  +227  Unincorporated Areas of
                                          downstream of Browns                          Lamar County.
                                          Bridge Road.
                                         Approximately 210 feet                  +237
                                          upstream of Browns
                                          Bridge Road.
Mill Creek No. 1.......................  Approximately 1,800 feet                +260  Unincorporated Areas of
                                          downstream of Hardie                          Lamar County, Town of
                                          Road.                                         Sumrall.
                                         Approximately 1.6 mile                  +313
                                          upstream of State
                                          Highway 42.
Mixons Creek Tributary 3...............  Approximately 935 feet                  +187  Unincorporated Areas of
                                          upstream of the                               Lamar County.
                                          confluence with Mixons
                                          Creek.

                                         Approximately 1.5 mile                  +235
                                          upstream of the
                                          confluence with Mixons
                                          Creek.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.
[caret] Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.
                                                    ADDRESSES
Town of Sumrall
Maps are available for inspection at the Town Hall, 4880 Highway 589, Sumrall, MS 39482.

Unincorporated Areas of Lamar County
Maps are available for inspection at the County Administrator's Office, 403 Main Street, Purvis, MS 39475.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Cortland County, New York (All Jurisdictions)
                                             Docket No.: FEMA-B-7784
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blue Creek.............................  At the confluence with                 +1185  Town of Cortlandville.
                                          Dry Creek.
                                         Approximately 215 feet                 +1204
                                          upstream of Kinney Gulf
                                          Road.
Dry Creek..............................  Approximately 720 feet                 +1116  City of Cortland, Town of
                                          downstream of North Main                      Cortlandville.
                                          Street.
                                         Approximately 330 feet                 +1211
                                          upstream of Kinney Gulf
                                          Road.
Gridley Creek..........................  At the confluence with                 +1044  Town of Virgil.
                                          the Tioughnioga River.
                                         Approximately 1.8 mile                 +1462
                                          upstream of Page Green
                                          Road.
Gridley Creek Tributary 9..............  At the confluence with                 +1354  Town of Virgil.
                                          Gridley Creek.
                                         Approximately 1,915 feet               +1396
                                          upstream of State Route
                                          392.
Gridley Creek Tributary 9-1............  At the confluence with                 +1429  Town of Virgil.
                                          Hope Lake.
                                         Approximately 0.4 mile                 +1564
                                          upstream of Clute Road.
Hope Lake..............................  Entire shoreline within                +1429  Town of Virgil.
                                          the Town of Virgil.
Mosquito Creek.........................  Approximately 50 feet                  +1150  Town of Cortlandville,
                                          upstream of West Center                       Village of McGraw.
                                          Street.
                                         Approximately 0.78 mile                +1509
                                          upstream of Heath Road.
Otselic River..........................  Approximately 991 feet                 +1034  Town of Cincinnatus.
                                          downstream of Route 23.
                                         Approximately 1.6 mile                 +1053
                                          upstream of Telephone
                                          Road.
Otter Creek............................  Approximately 130 feet                 +1121  City of Cortland, Town of
                                          upstream of North Main                        Cortlandville.
                                          Street.
                                         Approximately 70 feet                  +1186
                                          upstream of State Route
                                          13.
Otter Creek Tributary 3................  At the confluence with                 +1170  Town of Cortlandville.
                                          Otter Creek.
                                         Approximately 1,000 feet               +1170
                                          upstream of Gutchess
                                          Lumber Service Road.
Skaneateles Lake.......................  Entire shoreline within                 +867  Town of Scott.
                                          the Town of Scott.
Song Lake..............................  Entire shoreline within                +1195  Town of Preble.
                                          the Town of Preble.
Tioughnioga River Reach 2..............  Approximately 0.58 mile                +1014  Town of Marathon, Village
                                          downstream of Main                            of Marathon.
                                          Street.
                                         Approximately 0.85 mile                +1023
                                          upstream of Main Street.
Trout Brook............................  At Town of Solon                       +1204  Town of Solon.
                                          Corporate Limits,
                                          approximately 1.280 mile
                                          upstream of Hollow Road.
                                         Approximately 1.288 mile               +1204
                                          upstream of Hollow Road.
Tully Lake.............................  Entire shoreline within                +1195  Town of Preble.
                                          the Town of Preble.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.START
[caret] Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.
                                                    ADDRESSES
City of Cortland
Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 25 Court Street, Cortland, NY 13045.

Town of Cincinnatus
Maps are available for inspection at the Town Hall, 2770 Lower Cincinnatus Road, Cincinnatus, NY 13040.

Town of Cortlandville
Maps are available for inspection at the Cortlandville Town Hall, Raymond G. Thorpe Municipal Building, 3577
 Terrace Road, Cortland, NY 13045.

Town of Marathon
Maps are available for inspection at the Town of Marathon Highway Department, 16 Brink Street, Marathon, NY
 13803.
Town of Preble
Maps are available for inspection at the Town Hall, 1968 Preble Road, Preble, NY 13141.

Town of Scott

Maps are available for inspection at the Scott Town Hall, 6689 State Route 41, Homer, NY 13077.

Town of Solon
Maps are available for inspection at the Solon Town Hall, 4012 North Tower Road, East Freetown, NY 13040.

Town of Virgil
Maps are available for inspection at the Virgil Town Hall, 1176 Church Street, Cortland, NY 13045.

Village of Marathon
Maps are available for inspection at the Marathon Village Hall, 18 Tannery Street, Marathon, NY 13803.

Village of McGraw
Maps are available for inspection at the Village Hall, 1 Cemetery Street, McGraw, NY 13101.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Coshocton County, Ohio, and Incorporated Areas
                                             Docket No.: FEMA-B-1020
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Muskingum River........................  170 feet upstream of the                +737  Village of Conesville.
                                          railroad crossing over
                                          the Muskingum River east
                                          of the Village of
                                          Conesville.
                                         260 feet upstream of the                +737
                                          railroad crossing over
                                          the Muskingum River east
                                          of the Village of
                                          Conesville.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.
[caret] Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.
                                                    ADDRESSES
Village of Conesville
Maps are available for inspection at the Coshocton County Engineer's Office, 23194 County Road 621, Coshocton,
 OH 43812.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Chippewa County, Wisconsin, and Incorporated Areas
                                             Docket No.: FEMA-B-7799
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chippewa River.........................  Just upstream of the Jim                +955  Unincorporated Areas of
                                          Falls Dam Powerhouse.                         Chippewa County, City of
                                                                                Cornell.
                                         Just downstream of the                  +980
                                          Cornell Dam.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* National Geodetic Vertical Datum.
+ North American Vertical Datum.
 Depth in feet above ground.
[caret] Mean Sea Level, rounded to the nearest 0.1 meter.
                                                    ADDRESSES
City of Cornell
Maps are available for inspection at City Hall, 222 Main Street, Cornell, WI 54732.

Unincorporated Areas of Chippewa County
Maps are available for inspection at the Chippewa County Clerk's Office, 711 North Bridge Street, Room 109,
 Chippewa Falls, WI 54729.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

Sandra K. Knight,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Mitigation, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2010-4070 Filed 2-25-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 27 (Friday, February 8, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9440-9443]
[FR Doc No: 2013-02845]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68822; File No. SR-ISE-2013-12]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change by International Securities
Exchange, LLC To Amend ISE Rule 2128 Relating to Clearly Erroneous
Trades

February 4, 2013.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on February 1, 2013, the International Securities Exchange, LLC
(the ``Exchange'' or the ``ISE'') filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the ``Commission'') the proposed rule change as
described in Items I and II below, which items have been prepared by
the self-regulatory organization. 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 Rule 2128 (Clearly Erroneous Trades)
to extend the expiration of the pilot rule. The Exchange also proposes
to adopt

new paragraph (i) to Rule 2128 in connection with the upcoming
operation of the Plan to Address Extraordinary Market Volatility
Pursuant to Rule 608 of Regulation NMS under the Act (the ``Limit Up-
Limit Down Plan'' or ``Plan'').\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67091 (May 31,
2012), 77 FR 33498 (June 6, 2012) (the ``Limit Up-Limit Down
Release'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Internet Web site at http://www.ise.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 these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization
has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B and C below, of the
most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend ISE Rule 2128 (Clearly Erroneous
Trades) to extend the expiration of the pilot rule to September 30,
2013 and to adopt new paragraph (i) to Rule 2128 in connection with
upcoming operation of the Limit Up-Limit Down Plan. Amendments to ISE
Rule 2128 to provide for uniform treatment of certain clearly erroneous
execution reviews in multi-stock events involving twenty or more
securities and in the event transactions occur that result in the
issuance of an individual stock trading pause by the primary market and
subsequent transactions that occur before a trading pause is in effect
on the Exchange were approved by the Commission on September 10, 2010
on a pilot basis to end on April 11, 2011.\4\ The Exchange then
extended this pilot to expire upon the earlier of August 11, 2011 or
the date on which the limit up/limit down mechanism to address
extraordinary market volatility applies.\5\ The Exchange then extended
the pilot to January 31, 2012 \6\ and, once again, extended the pilot
to July 31, 2012.\7\ On July 27, 2012, ISE Rule 2102 [sic] was amended
to extend the pilot to February 4, 2013.\8\ The Exchange now proposes
to extend the date by which this pilot rule will expire to September
30, 2013, which is the date that the Exchange anticipates that the
phased implementation of the Limit Up-Limit Down Plan will be complete.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 62886 (September
10, 2010), 75 FR 56613 (September 16, 2010) (SR-ISE-2010-62)
(Extending the pilot period to December 10, 2010); 63481 (December
9, 2010), 75 FR 78275 (December 15, 2010) (Extending the pilot
period to April 11, 2011).
    \5\ See Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 64231 (April 7,
2011), 76 FR 20733 (April 13, 2011) (SR-ISE-2011-19).
    \6\ See Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 65061 (August 9,
2011), 76 FR 50503 (August 15, 2011) (SR-ISE-2011-51).
    \7\ See Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 66255 (January
26, 2012), 77 FR 5081 (February 1, 2012) (SR-ISE-2012-04).
    \8\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67528 (July 27,
2012), 77 FR 46532 (August 3, 2012) (SR-ISE-2012-67).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained in further detail below, although the Limit Up-Limit
Down Plan is intended to prevent executions that would need to be
nullified as clearly erroneous, the Exchange believes that certain
protections should be maintained while the industry gains initial
experience operating with the Limit Up-Limit Down Plan, including the
provisions of Rule 11.17 that currently operate as a pilot.

Proposed Limit Up-Limit Down Provision to Rule 11.17

    The Exchange proposes to adopt new paragraph (i) to Rule 2128, to
provide that the existing provisions of Rule 2128 will continue to
apply to all Exchange transactions, including transactions in
securities subject to the Plan, other than as set forth in proposed
paragraph (i). Accordingly, other than as proposed below, the Exchange
proposes to maintain and continue to apply the Clearly Erroneous trade
standards in the same way that it does today. Notably, this means that
the Exchange might nullify transactions that occur within the price
bands disseminated pursuant to the Limit Up-Limit Down Plan to the
extent such transactions qualify as clearly erroneous under existing
criteria. As an example, assume that a Tier 1 security pursuant to the
Plan has a reference price pursuant to both the Plan and Rule 2128 of
$100.00. The lower pricing band under the Plan would be $95.00 and the
upper pricing band under the Plan would be $105.00. An execution could
occur on the Exchange in this security at $96.00, as this is within the
Plan's pricing bands. However, if subjected to review as potentially
clearly erroneous, the Exchange would nullify an execution at $96.00 as
clearly erroneous because it exceeds the 3% threshold that is in place
pursuant to Rule 2128(c)(1) for securities priced above $50.00 (i.e.,
with a reference price of $100.00, any transactions at or below $97.00
or above $103.00 could be nullified as clearly erroneous). Accordingly,
this proposal maintains the status quo with respect to reviews of
Clearly Erroneous Executions and the application of objective numerical
guidelines by the Exchange. The proposal does not increase the
discretion afforded to the Exchange in connection with reviews of
Clearly Erroneous Executions.
    The Limit Up-Limit Down Plan is designed to prevent executions from
occurring outside of dynamic price bands disseminated to the public by
the single plan processor as defined in the Limit Up-Limit Down
Plan.\9\ The possibility remains that the Exchange could experience a
technology or systems problem with respect to the implementation of the
price bands disseminated pursuant to the Plan. To address such
possibilities, the Exchange proposes to adopt language to make clear
that if an Exchange technology or systems issue results in any
transaction occurring outside of the price bands disseminated pursuant
to the Plan, an Officer of the Exchange or senior level employee
designee, acting on his or her own motion or at the request of a third
party, shall review and declare any such trades null and void. Absent
extraordinary circumstances, any such action of the Officer of the
Exchange or other senior level employee designee shall be taken in a
timely fashion, generally within thirty (30) minutes of the detection
of the erroneous transaction. When extraordinary circumstances exist,
any such action of the Officer of the Exchange or other senior level
employee designee must be taken by no later than the start of Regular
Market Session \10\ on the trading day following the date on which the
execution(s) under review occurred. Although the Exchange will act as
promptly as possible and the proposed objective standard (i.e., whether
an execution occurred outside the band) should make it feasible to
quickly make a determination, there may be circumstances in which
additional time may be needed for verification of facts or coordination
with outside parties, including the single plan processor responsible
for disseminating the price bands and other market centers.
Accordingly, the Exchange believes it

necessary to maintain some flexibility to make a determination outside
of the thirty (30) minute guideline. In addition, the Exchange proposes
that a transaction that is nullified pursuant to new paragraph (i)
would be appealable in accordance with the provisions of Rule
2128(e)(2). In addition, the Exchange proposes to make clear that in
the event that a single plan processor experiences a technology or
systems problem that prevents the dissemination of price bands, the
Exchange would make the determination of whether to nullify
transactions based on Rule 2128(a)-(h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Limit Up-Limit Down Release, supra note 3.
    \10\ Regular Market Session commence [sic] at 9:30 a.m. Eastern
Time. See ISE Rules 2102 and 2106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that cancelling trades that occur outside of
the price bands disseminated pursuant to the Plan is consistent with
the purpose and intent of the Plan, as such transactions are not
intended to occur in the first place. If transactions do occur outside
of the price bands and no exception applies--which necessarily would be
caused by a technology or systems issue--then the Exchange believes the
appropriate result is to nullify such transactions.
2. Statutory Basis
    The statutory basis for the proposed rule change is Section 6(b)(5)
of the Act,\11\ which requires the rules of an exchange to promote just
and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect
the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system
and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The
Exchange believes that the pilot program promotes just and equitable
principles of trade in that it promotes transparency and uniformity
across markets concerning review of transactions as clearly erroneous.
More specifically, the Exchange believes that the extension of the
pilot would help assure that the determination of whether a clearly
erroneous trade has occurred will be based on clear and objective
criteria, and that the resolution of the incident will occur promptly
through a transparent process. The proposed rule change would also help
assure consistent results in handling erroneous trades across the U.S.
markets, thus furthering fair and orderly markets, the protection of
investors and the public interest. Although the Limit Up-Limit Down
Plan will be operational during the same time period as the proposed
extended pilot, the Exchange believes that maintaining the pilot for at
least through the phased implementation of the Plan is operational will
help to protect against unanticipated consequences. To that end, the
extension will allow the Exchange to determine whether Rule 2128 is
necessary once the Plan is operational and, if so, whether improvements
can be made. Further, the Exchange believes it consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest to adopt objective
criteria to nullify transactions that occur outside of the Plan's price
bands when such transactions should not have been executed but were due
to a systems or technology issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from members or other interested
parties.

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

    Because the proposed rule change does not (i) Significantly affect
the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30
days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the
Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors
and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \12\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). As required under Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii), the Exchange provided the Commission with written
notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and the text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative
delay so that the proposal may become operative immediately upon
filing. The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay
is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest,
as it will allow the pilot program to continue uninterrupted, thereby
avoiding the investor confusion that could result from a temporary
interruption in the pilot program. For this reason, the Commission
designates the proposed rule change to be operative upon filing.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has also considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the 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.

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-ISE-2013-12 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-ISE-2013-12. 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 on official business
days between the hours of 10:00 a.m.

and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal offices of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2013-12, and should be
submitted on or before March 1, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-02845 Filed 2-7-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 10, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21512-21516]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8565]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2011-0719; FRL-9658-1]

Approval, Disapproval and Promulgation of Air Quality
Implementation Plan; Utah; Maintenance Plan for the 1-Hour Ozone
Standard for Salt Lake and Davis Counties

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to partially approve and partially disapprove
State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the Governor of
Utah on February 22, 1999. These revisions updated the State of Utah's
maintenance plan for the 1-hour ozone standard for Salt Lake County and
Davis County. As part of this action, EPA is also addressing certain
actions it took in 2003 concerning such maintenance plan. This action
is being taken under section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received at the address below on or
before May 10, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2011-0719, by one of the following methods:
     www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER> (please alert the individual listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing comments).
     Mail: Carl Daly, Director, Air Program, Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop St.,
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129.
     Hand Delivery: Carl Daly, Director, Air Program,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595
Wynkoop St., Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. Such deliveries are only
accepted Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal
holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-
2011-0719. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an anonymous access system, which means
EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. 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. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. For additional
instructions on submitting comments, go to Section I. General
Information of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Program,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop St.,
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to view the hard copy of the docket. You may view the hard copy
of the docket Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., excluding
Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jody Ostendorf, Air Program, Mailcode
8P-AR, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop
St., Denver, Colorado 80202-1129,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Information is organized as follows:

Table of Contents

I. General Information
II. Background of State Submittal
III. EPA's Analysis of the Revisions to the Maintenance Plan for the
1-Hour Ozone Standard for Salt Lake County and Davis County
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Definitions

    For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain
words as follows:

    (i) The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the Clean
Air Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
    (ii) The initials ACT mean or refer to Alternative Control
Guidance Document.
    (iii) The initials CO mean or refer to carbon monoxide.
    (iv) The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United
States Environmental Protection Agency.
    (v) The initials NAAQS mean or refer to national ambient air
quality standards.

    (vi) The initials RACT mean or refer to reasonably available
control technology.
    (vii) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation
Plan.
    (viii) The words State or Utah mean the State of Utah, unless
the context indicates otherwise.

I. General Information

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

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    a. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    b. Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    c. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    d. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    e. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    f. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
    g. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    h. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.

II. Background of State Submittal

    Under the CAA enacted in 1970, EPA established national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS) for certain pervasive air pollutants, such as
photochemical oxidant, carbon monoxide (CO), and particulate matter.
The NAAQS represent concentration levels below which public health and
welfare are protected. The 1970 Act also required states to adopt and
submit SIPs to implement, maintain, and enforce the NAAQS.
    SIP revisions are required from time-to-time to account for new or
amended NAAQS or to meet other changed circumstances. The CAA was
significantly amended in 1977, and under the 1977 Amendments, EPA
promulgated attainment status designations for all areas of the country
with respect to the NAAQS.
    The CAA requires EPA to periodically review and revise the NAAQS,
and in 1979, EPA established a new NAAQS of 0.12 ppm for ozone,
averaged over 1 hour. This new NAAQS replaced the oxidant standard of
0.08 ppm. See 44 FR 8202 (February 8, 1979). Areas designated
nonattainment for oxidant were considered to be nonattainment for ozone
as well. The CAA requires that states submit revised SIPs to address
new or revised NAAQS. Part D of CAA Title I requires special measures
for areas designated nonattainment. In 1984, EPA approved Utah's SIP
for the 1-hour ozone standard for the Salt Lake County and Davis County
nonattainment area (49 FR 32575).
    Congress significantly amended the CAA again in 1990. Under the
1990 Amendments, each area of the country that was designated
nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, including Salt Lake County
and Davis County, was classified by operation of law as marginal,
moderate, serious, severe, or extreme nonattainment depending on the
severity of the area's air quality problem. The ozone nonattainment
designation for Salt Lake County and Davis County continued by
operation of law according to section 107(d)(1)(C)(i) of the CAA, as
amended in 1990. Furthermore, the area was classified by operation of
law as moderate for ozone under CAA section 181(a)(1).
    Under CAA section 175A, states may request redesignation of a
nonattainment area to attainment if monitoring data showed that the
area has met the NAAQS and certain other requirements. On July 18,
1995, both Salt Lake and Davis Counties were found to be attaining the
1-hour ozone standard (60 FR 36723). On July 17, 1997, EPA approved the
State's request to redesignate Salt Lake and Davis County to attainment
for the 1-hour ozone standard. As part of that action, EPA approved the
State's 1-hour ozone maintenance plan (62 FR 38213).
    On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated an 8-hour ozone NAAQS (62 FR
38894). This standard was intended to replace the 1-hour ozone
standard.
    On February 22, 1999, partially in response to EPA's promulgation
of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, but for other purposes as well, Utah
submitted six revisions to its approved 1-hour maintenance plan. These
revisions consisted of the following: (1) Changes to the nitrogen
oxides (NOX) Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)
provisions; (2) clarification of the transportation conformity
provisions; (3) removal of budgets for sources other than on-road
mobile sources; (4) changes to the trigger for contingency measures;
(5) removal of the commitment to develop an annual inventory for point
sources; and (6) removal of references to CO in various sections of the
maintenance plan. EPA did not act on the revisions at the time, in part
because of a 1999 legal challenge to the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    On December 31, 2002, Utah submitted what it characterized as non-
substantive changes to the 1-hour ozone maintenance plan. The primary
purpose of the changes was to revise cross-references in the 1-hour
maintenance plan to Utah air rules whose numbering Utah had changed.
EPA approved these changes in 2003 (68 FR 37744, June 25, 2003).
Subsequently, EPA discovered that in the June 25, 2003 action it had
inadvertently incorporated by reference certain changes to the
contingency measures provision in the 1-hour ozone maintenance plan
that were substantive in nature and had not been previously approved--
i.e., the proposed changes to the contingency measures that Utah had
submitted on February 22, 1999. On October 15, 2003, EPA issued a
technical correction to delete the changes to the contingency measures
provision from the approved SIP (68 FR 59327).
    We have since discovered that Utah's December 31, 2002 submittal
included other revisions from its February 22, 1999 submittal that were
substantive in nature. These revisions included the (1) changes to the
NOX RACT provisions, (2) removal of the commitment to
develop an annual inventory for point sources, and (3) removal of
references to CO in some sections of the maintenance plan. Because we
were not aware that we had inadvertently approved these revisions in
2003, we did not issue a technical correction to reverse our approval.
As we explain more fully below, in this action we are proposing to
ratify our 2003 inadvertent approval of these revisions.
    On April 30, 2004, EPA designated areas of the country for the 1997
8-hour ozone standard (69 FR 23857). EPA

designated all areas in Utah, including Salt Lake County and Davis
County, as unclassifiable/attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
(69 FR 23940).
    Also, on April 30, 2004, EPA revoked the pre-existing 1-hour NAAQS
(69 FR 23951, 23996; 40 CFR 50.9(b)). As part of this rulemaking, EPA
also established certain requirements to prevent backsliding in those
areas that were designated as nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone
standard at the time of designation for the 8-hour ozone standard, or
that were redesignated to ``attainment'' but subject to a maintenance
plan, as is the case for Salt Lake County and Davis County. These
requirements are codified at 40 CFR 51.905.
    In the case of Utah, one of these requirements was to submit a
maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. Also, the rule
clarifies that revisions to pre-existing 1-hour ozone maintenance plans
must be approved by EPA and must meet the requirements of CAA sections
110(l) and 193. It also clarifies that EPA will not approve certain
changes to the 1-hour ozone maintenance plan until a state in Utah's
position has submitted and EPA has approved the maintenance plan for
the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. We have not approved a maintenance plan
for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard for Salt Lake County or Davis
County.
    On March 22, 2007, the Governor of Utah submitted a maintenance
plan for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard for Salt Lake County and Davis
County, and associated rule revisions. EPA is not taking action on that
submittal at this time.\1\ Rather, EPA is only acting on the revisions
to the maintenance plan submitted on February 22, 1999.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The area violated the 1997 8-hour ozone standard based on
monitored data for 2005-2007. Thus, we have suggested that Utah
withdraw and revise its maintenance plan for the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. EPA's Analysis of the Revisions to the Maintenance Plan for the 1-
Hour Ozone Standard for Salt Lake County and Davis County

    The State's February 22, 1999 submittal included six revisions to
the 1-hour ozone maintenance plan. As noted above, the State's December
31, 2002 submittal included some of the same revisions, and we
inadvertently approved some of those revisions. We describe the various
revisions and our analysis of them in the following paragraphs.

A. Section IX.D.2.b(4)(a), ``NOX RACT''

    The State's 1999 submittal proposed to remove from the maintenance
plan a commitment to address new ``Alternative Control Guidance
Documents (ACTs)'' for NOX issued by EPA. That commitment
read as follows:

    As the EPA publishes ACT documents containing new determinations
of what constitutes RACT for various source categories of
NOX located within nonattainment areas for ozone, the
State will either make a negative declaration for that source
category in Salt Lake and Davis Counties, or will revise the Air
Conservation Rules to reflect such determinations. This
documentation will then be submitted to EPA for approval as a
specific SIP revision according to the schedule included in the
final guidance. In the absence of such an implementation schedule
the State will act as expeditiously as practicable.

As noted, we inadvertently approved the removal of this commitment and
accompanying introductory language in our 2003 action, in which we only
intended to approve non-substantive changes to numbering and cross-
references.
    In this action, we are proposing to ratify our 2003 approval for
the following reasons. First, when we approved the maintenance plan in
1997, we simultaneously approved Utah's NOX RACT exemption
request for major stationary sources in the 1-hour ozone nonattainment
area, except to the extent the SIP already included specific
NOX RACT requirements (62 FR 28403, May 23, 1997; 62 FR
38213, July 17, 1997). The basis for our approval was that ambient air
quality monitoring data showed that the area met the 1-hour ozone
standard of 0.12 ppm without additional RACT measures. Thus, if the
maintenance plan had omitted the commitment regarding future
NOX ACTs, we would have approved it; the commitment was not
required or necessary, and the purpose of Utah's revision to the
maintenance plan was to align the plan with the NOX RACT
exemption request. In light of our approval of that exemption request,
the removal of the commitment in the maintenance plan is reasonable,
since it is not needed to ensure maintenance of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS.
    Second, ACTs do not determine what constitutes RACT; instead they
evaluate a range of potential control options. EPA has updated only two
NOX ACTs since we approved the maintenance plan in 1997--one
for cement manufacturing and one for internal combustion engines--and
we do not read those updates as being ``new determinations of what
constitutes RACT.'' In other words, we conclude that the commitment has
not been triggered, even if there are sources in the maintenance area
for which the updated ACTs would be relevant. We also conclude that the
commitment will not be triggered in the future because EPA does not
determine RACT in ACTs. Thus, we conclude that the removal of the
commitment from the maintenance plan will not interfere with attainment
of any NAAQS or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. See CAA
section 110(l).

B. Section IX.D.2.f(3), ``Safety Margin,'' and Table 9, ``Safety
Margin''

    The State's 1999 submittal proposed to modify the maintenance
plan's language regarding the use of any safety margin for
transportation conformity determinations and to add new Table 9, which
specifies the safety margin available for various years. For a
maintenance plan, our regulations define safety margin as the amount by
which the total projected emissions from all sources of a given
pollutant are less than the total emissions that would satisfy the
maintenance requirement. 40 CFR 93.101. The existing language in Utah's
1-hour ozone maintenance plan uses the term ``emissions credit'' rather
than ``safety margin.'' Also, the existing language doesn't identify
the available safety margin. The revised language uses the term
``safety margin,'' which is consistent with EPA's regulations, and
indicates that the safety margin is defined in Table 9 of the
maintenance plan. Our regulations require that the safety margin be
explicitly quantified in the SIP before it may be used for conformity
purposes. 40 CFR 93.124. The revised language also clarifies and
strengthens the procedures for use of the safety margin for
transportation or general conformity determinations. Use of all or a
portion of the safety margin for general conformity purposes would
require EPA approval of a SIP revision. Also, the Utah Board would need
to approve the use of any part of the safety margin for either
transportation or general conformity purposes. We find that the
revisions to Section IX.D.2.f(3) and the addition of Table 9 are
consistent with our conformity regulations and will not interfere with
maintenance of the 1-hour ozone standard, attainment or maintenance of
any other NAAQS, or any other CAA requirement.

C. Section IX.D.2.f, Table 8

    The State's 1999 submittal proposed to remove from Table 8 of the
maintenance plan the budgets for sources other than on-road mobile
sources. The previously approved maintenance plan contains budgets for
area sources, non-road mobile sources, and point sources, in addition
to the

budgets for on-road mobile sources. These budgets are specified for
years 1994 through 2006, 2007 (the end of the maintenance period),
2015, and 2020. The 2007 budgets are identical to the inventory values
used to demonstrate maintenance in 2007. Under our general conformity
regulations, these 2007 inventory values for sources other than on-road
mobile sources are defined as budgets for general conformity regardless
of whether they are explicitly stated in the maintenance plan. We also
note that the 2007 budgets are more stringent than the 2015 and 2020
budgets (except for two instances in which the differences are very
slight). Thus, we find that the removal of the 2015 and 2020 budgets
for sources other than on-road mobile sources will make it more
difficult to show general conformity. In this sense, removal of such
budgets will make the SIP more stringent. In addition, we have
confirmed with the State that the State has never allowed reliance on
such budgets for a general conformity showing. Finally, such budgets
are not needed to ensure ongoing maintenance of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS;
nor will their removal from the maintenance plan interfere with the
attainment or maintenance of other NAAQS or compliance with other CAA
requirements. Thus, we are proposing to approve the removal from the
maintenance plan of the budgets for area, on-road mobile, and point
sources.

D. Section IX.D.2.h(2), ``Determination of Contingency Action Level''

    The State's 1999 submittal proposed to change the maintenance
plan's trigger for contingency measures. Instead of a defined trigger,
the revised plan would allow the State to consider several factors in
deciding whether contingency measures should be implemented to attain
or maintain the 8-hour ozone standard. The revision would also redefine
the contingency trigger date to be the date the State determines that
one or more contingency measures should be implemented. EPA is
proposing to disapprove these changes.
    Our consistent interpretation has been that contingency measures in
a maintenance plan must include a pre-defined trigger, such as a
violation of the standard. In the maintenance plan, the State must
commit to implement one or more contingency measures within a set
period after the violation. The revised SIP does not include a pre-
defined trigger, and, thus, we are proposing to disapprove the State's
revisions to Section IX.D.2.h(2) of the maintenance plan.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ We note that one of the potential contingency measures
(stage two vapor recovery) has not been approved by EPA as a stand-
alone SIP measure; however it is part of the maintenance plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While 40 CFR 51.905(e) discusses modifications that may be
implemented upon revocation of the 1-hour standard, including removal
of the obligation to implement contingency measures upon a violation of
the 1-hour NAAQS, the modifications only apply to areas with an
approved maintenance plan for the 8-hour ozone standard. The State does
not have an approved 8-hour ozone maintenance plan.

E. Section IX.D.2.j(1), ``Tracking System for Verification of Emission
Inventory''

    The State's 1999 submittal proposed to remove the maintenance
plan's reference to an annual inventory for point sources.
Specifically, section IX.D.2.j(1)(b) of the previously approved
maintenance plan includes the State's commitment to develop an annual
inventory for point sources in the area. A separate section of the
previously approved maintenance plan--section IX.D.2.j(1)(a)--includes
a commitment to update the inventory for all source categories every
three years. The State's 1999 submittal did not propose to change this
latter commitment.
    As noted, in our 2003 action we inadvertently approved the removal
of the State's commitment to develop an annual inventory for point
sources. In that 2003 action, we only intended to approve non-
substantive changes to numbering and cross-references. In this action,
we are proposing to ratify our 2003 approval of the State's removal of
the commitment to develop an annual inventory for point sources.
Approval is warranted because such an inventory is not needed to ensure
maintenance of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. Nor will removal of the
commitment to submit an annual inventory for point sources interfere
with attainment or maintenance of any other NAAQS or compliance with
any other CAA requirement. The maintenance plan retains the requirement
that the State update its inventory of all source categories every
three years. This is consistent with EPA's regulatory requirements for
inventories, and we find that a three-year frequency is adequate to
track emissions relevant to the maintenance plan.

F. Various Sections

    The State's 1999 submittal proposed to remove all references to CO
because CO is not a significant contributor to ozone formation. These
references occur in a variety of locations in the 1-hour ozone
maintenance plan. For example, the maintenance plan includes
inventories for CO, transportation conformity budgets for CO, budgets
for CO for sources other than on-road mobile sources, and references to
inspection and maintenance provisions for CO.
    As noted, we inadvertently approved the removal of some of these
references to CO in our 2003 action, in which we only intended to
approve non-substantive changes to numbering and cross-references. In
this action, we are proposing to ratify our 2003 approval of the
State's removal of some of the references to CO and to also approve the
State's removal of all other references to CO in the 1-hour ozone
maintenance plan.
    First, we agree with the State that CO is not a significant
contributor to ozone formation. Thus, there is no need for CO measures
to ensure maintenance of the 1-hour ozone standard or any other ozone
standard. Second, the removal of the CO measures in the 1-hour ozone
maintenance plan will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of
any other NAAQS or compliance with any other CAA requirement. In
particular, there are no CO nonattainment areas in Utah. Within Salt
Lake and Davis Counties, the only maintenance area for CO is Salt Lake
City. It has its own maintenance plan, with its own motor vehicle
emissions budgets and CO measures. In addition, recent monitored
ambient CO values for Salt Lake City and other areas in Utah are well
below the level of the CO NAAQS.
    Thus, the removal of CO measures in the 1-hour ozone maintenance
plan is consistent with continued maintenance of the 1-hour ozone NAAQS
and with CAA section 110(l).

G. Miscellaneous

    As noted above, we previously approved revisions to the 1-hour
ozone maintenance plan that the State submitted on December 31, 2002, a
date that post-dates the date of the revisions we are proposing to act
on today. In particular, in our June 25, 2003 action on the December
31, 2002 submittal, we approved Utah's updating of references in the 1-
hour ozone maintenance plan to Utah air rules whose numbering Utah had
changed after it submitted revisions to the 1-hour ozone maintenance
plan in 1999. See 68 FR 37744. We are proposing to retain the updated
references to Utah air rules as we approved them in our June 25, 2003
action. We are not proposing to replace these updated references with
the older references contained in the 1-hour

ozone maintenance plan that Utah submitted in 1999.

IV. Proposed Action

    For the reasons described above, we are proposing the following
actions concerning Utah's revisions to the 1-hour ozone maintenance
plan for Salt Lake and Davis Counties that Utah submitted on February
22, 1999:\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ All section and table references are to sections and tables
in the 1-hour ozone maintenance plan for Salt Lake and Davis
Counties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     We are proposing to ratify our 2003 approval of Utah's
revisions to Section IX.D.2.b(4)(a), ``NOX RACT.''
     We are proposing to approve Utah's revisions to Section
IX.D.2.f(3), ``Safety Margin,'' and Utah's addition of Table 9,
``Safety Margin.''
     We are proposing to approve Utah's revisions to Section
IX.D.2.f, Table 8.
     We are proposing to disapprove Utah's revisions to Section
IX.D.2.h(2), ``Determination of Contingency Action Level.''
     We are proposing to ratify our 2003 approval of Utah's
revisions to subsection IX.D.2.j(1)(b) of Section IX.D.2.j(1),
``Tracking System for Verification of Emission Inventory.''
     We are proposing to ratify our 2003 approval of Utah's
removal of some references to CO in the plan and to approve Utah's
removal of all other references to CO in the plan.
    EPA is soliciting public comments on its proposed rulemaking as
discussed in this document. EPA will consider these comments before
taking final action. Interested parties may participate in the Federal
rulemaking procedure by submitting written comments to EPA as discussed
in this notice.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations (42 U.S.C. 7410(k), 40 CFR 52.02(a)). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
proposed action merely approves some state law as meeting Federal
requirements and disapproves other state law because it does not meet
Federal requirements; this proposed action does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this
proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and,
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have Tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Environmental protection,
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: March 28, 2012.
James B. Martin,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2012-8565 Filed 4-9-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 52 (Monday, March 18, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16764-16765]
[FR Doc No: 2013-06129]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket No. PHMSA-2012-0302]

Pipeline Safety: Information Collection Activities

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.

ACTION: Notice and Request for Comments on a Previously Approved
Information Collection.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this notice announces that the information
collection under Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control No.
2137-0605, titled ``Integrity Management in High Consequence Areas for
Operators of Hazardous Liquid Pipelines'' is being forwarded to OMB for
review and comments. A Federal Register notice with a 60-day comment
period soliciting comments on this information collection was published
on December 13, 2012, (77 FR 74276) under docket number PHMSA-2012-
0302. No comments were received. The purpose of this notice is to allow
the public an

additional 30 days to send comments to OMB on the information
collection as described below.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before April 17, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Send comments regarding the burden estimate, including
suggestions for reducing the burden, to OMB, Attention: Desk Officer
for the Office of the Secretary of Transportation, 725 17th Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20503.
    Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Department, including whether the information will have practical
utility, the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of the
proposed information collection, ways to enhance the quality, utility
and clarity of the information to be collected, and ways to minimize
the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including
the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Angela Dow by telephone at 202-366-
1246, by fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by mail at U.S. Department of
Transportation, PHMSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., PHP-30, Washington,
DC 20590-0001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: Integrity Management in High Consequence Areas for Operators
of Hazardous Liquid Pipelines.
    OMB Control Number: 2137-0605.
    Current Expiration Date: 05/31/2013.
    Abstract: Hazardous liquid operators with pipelines located in or
that could affect high consequence areas (i.e., commercially navigable
waterways, high population areas, other populated areas, and unusually
sensitive areas as defined in 49 CFR 195.450) are subject to certain
information collection requirements relative to the Integrity
Management Program provisions of 49 CFR 195.452.
    Affected Public: All pipeline operators of hazardous liquid
pipelines located in or that could affect high consequence areas.
    Annual Reporting and Recordkeeping Burden:
    Annual Responses: 203.
    Annual Burden Hours: 325,470.
    Frequency of collection: On occasion.

    Authority:  The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35, as amended, and 49 CFR 1.48.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 12, 2013.
John A. Gale,
Director, Office of Standards and Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2013-06129 Filed 3-15-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


[Federal Register: August 21, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 161)]
[Notices]
[Page 42361]
[DOCID:fr21au09-118]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Intent To Rule on Request To Release Airport Property
at the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, Seattle, WA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of request to release airport property, correction.

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

SUMMARY: On August 12, 2009, the FAA published in the Federal Register
a notice of intent to rule on a request to release airport property at
the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, Seattle, WA.
    The DATES section designating the public comment period is
incorrect. The correction to be made will provide a full 30-day public
comment period, currently identified in FR Doc. No. E9-19055, on page
40639, as August 6, 2009.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 21, 2009.

    Issued in Renton, Washington on August 12, 2009.
Carol Suomi,
Manager, Seattle Airports District Office, Northwest Mountain Region.
[FR Doc. E9-20123 Filed 8-20-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M