[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 132 (Monday, July 11, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 40624-40628]
[FR Doc No: 2011-17190]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2011-0304; FRL-9434-3]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; State of
Kansas

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submittal
from the State of Kansas addressing the requirements of Clean Air Act
(CAA or Act) sections 110(a)(1) and (2) to implement, maintain, and
enforce the 1997 revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) for ozone. The rationale for this action is explained
in this notice and in more detail in the notice of proposed rulemaking
for this action. EPA received no comments on the proposal.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective August 10, 2011.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R07-OAR-2011-0304. All documents in the docket are listed on
the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, i.e., 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 either
electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7, in the Air Planning
and Development Branch of the Air and Waste Management Division, 901
North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101. EPA requests that, if at
all possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The interested
persons wanting to examine these documents should make an appointment
with the office at least 24 hours in advance. The Regional Office
official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8 to 4:30,
excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Elizabeth Kramer, Air Planning and
Development Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 7, 901
North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101; telephone number: (913)
551-7186; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. These sections provide
additional information on this final action:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Summary of Relevant Submissions
III. Scope of Infrastructure SIPs
IV. Final Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On March 30, 2011 (76 FR 17599), EPA published a proposed
rulemaking for the State of Kansas. This rulemaking proposed approval
of Kansas' submittals dated January 8, 2008 and July 20, 2009 as
meeting the relevant and applicable requirements of CAA sections
110(a)(1) and (2) necessary to implement, maintain, and enforce the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

II. Summary of Relevant Submissions

    The above referenced submittals address the infrastructure elements
specified in CAA sections 110(a)(1) and (2). These submittals refer to
the implementation, maintenance and enforcement of the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. The rationale supporting EPA's proposed action is
explained in the proposal and EPA incorporates by reference the
rationale in the proposal, as supplemented by this notice, as its
rationale for the final rule. No public comments were received on the
proposed rulemaking.

III. Scope of Infrastructure SIPs

    EPA is currently acting upon SIPs that address the infrastructure
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(1) and (2) for ozone and
PM2.5 NAAQS for various states across the country.
Commenters on EPA's recent proposals for some states raised concerns
about EPA statements that it was not addressing certain substantive
issues in the context of acting on the infrastructure SIP
submissions.\1\ The commenters specifically raised concerns involving
provisions in existing SIPs and with EPA's statements that it would
address two issues separately and not as part of actions on the
infrastructure SIP submissions: (i) existing provisions related to
excess emissions during periods of start-up, shutdown, or malfunction
at sources, that may be contrary to the CAA and EPA's policies
addressing such excess emissions (``SSM''); and (ii) existing
provisions related to ``director's variance'' or ``director's
discretion'' that purport to permit revisions to SIP approved emissions
limits with limited public process or without requiring further
approval by EPA, that may be contrary to the CAA (``director's
discretion''). EPA notes that there are two other substantive issues
for which EPA likewise stated that it would address the issues
separately: (i) Existing provisions for minor source new source review
programs that may be inconsistent with the requirements of the CAA and
EPA's regulations that pertain to such programs (``minor source NSR'');
and (ii) existing provisions for Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD)

programs that may be inconsistent with current requirements of EPA's
``Final NSR Improvement Rule,'' 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 2002), as
amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (``NSR Reform''). In light of
the comments, EPA now believes that its statements in various proposed
actions on infrastructure SIPs with respect to these four individual
issues should be explained in greater depth with respect to these
issues.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See, Comments of Midwest Environmental Defense Center, dated
May 31, 2011. Docket  EPA-R05-OAR-2007-1179 (adverse
comments on proposals for three states in Region 5). EPA notes that
these public comments on another proposal are not relevant to this
rulemaking and do not have to be directly addressed in this
rulemaking. EPA will respond to these comments in the appropriate
rulemaking action to which they apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA intended the statements in the proposals concerning these four
issues merely to be informational, and to provide general notice of the
potential existence of provisions within the existing SIPs of some
states that might require future corrective action. EPA did not want
states, regulated entities, or members of the public to be under the
misconception that the Agency's approval of the infrastructure SIP
submission of a given state should be interpreted as a reapproval of
certain types of provisions that might exist buried in the larger
existing SIP for such state. Thus, for example, EPA explicitly noted
that the Agency believes that some states may have existing SIP
approved SSM provisions that are contrary to the CAA and EPA policy,
but that ``in this rulemaking, EPA is not proposing to approve or
disapprove any existing State provisions with regard to excess
emissions during SSM of operations at facilities.'' EPA further
explained, for informational purposes, that ``EPA plans to address such
State regulations in the future.'' EPA made similar statements, for
similar reasons, with respect to the director's discretion, minor
source NSR, and NSR Reform issues. EPA's objective was to make clear
that approval of an infrastructure SIP for these ozone and
PM2.5 NAAQS should not be construed as explicit or implicit
reapproval of any existing provisions that relate to these four
substantive issues.
    Unfortunately, the commenters and others evidently interpreted
these statements to mean that EPA considered action upon the SSM
provisions and the other three substantive issues to be integral parts
of acting on an infrastructure SIP submission, and therefore that EPA
was merely postponing taking final action on the issue in the context
of the infrastructure SIPs. This was not EPA's intention. To the
contrary, EPA only meant to convey its awareness of the potential for
certain types of deficiencies in existing SIPs, and to prevent any
misunderstanding that it was reapproving any such existing provisions.
EPA's intention was to convey its position that the statute does not
require that infrastructure SIPs address these specific substantive
issues in existing SIPs and that these issues may be dealt with
separately, outside the context of acting on the infrastructure SIP
submission of a state. To be clear, EPA did not mean to imply that it
was not taking a full final agency action on the infrastructure SIP
submission with respect to any substantive issue that EPA considers to
be a required part of acting on such submissions under section 110(k)
or under section 110(c). Given the confusion evidently resulting from
EPA's statements, however, we want to explain more fully the Agency's
reasons for concluding that these four potential substantive issues in
existing SIPs may be addressed separately.
    The requirement for the SIP submissions at issue arises out of CAA
section 110(a)(1). That provision requires that states must make a SIP
submission ``within 3 years (or such shorter period as the
Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a national
primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision thereof)'' and
that these SIPS are to provide for the ``implementation, maintenance,
and enforcement'' of such NAAQS. Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of
specific elements that ``[e]ach such plan'' submission must meet. EPA
has historically referred to these particular submissions that states
must make after the promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS as
``infrastructure SIPs.'' This specific term does not appear in the
statute, but EPA uses the term to distinguish this particular type of
SIP submission designed to address basic structural requirements of a
SIP from other types of SIP submissions designed to address other
different requirements, such as ``nonattainment SIP'' submissions
required to address the nonattainment planning requirements of part D,
``regional haze SIP'' submissions required to address the visibility
protection requirements of CAA section 169A, new source review
permitting program submissions required to address the requirements of
part D, and a host of other specific types of SIP submissions that
address other specific matters.
    Although section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general
requirements for these infrastructure SIPs, and section 110(a)(2)
provides more details concerning the required contents of these
infrastructure SIPs, EPA believes that many of the specific statutory
provisions are facially ambiguous. In particular, the list of required
elements provided in section 110(a)(2) contains a wide variety of
disparate provisions, some of which pertain to required legal
authority, some of which pertain to required substantive provisions,
and some of which pertain to requirements for both authority and
substantive provisions.\2\ Some of the elements of section 110(a)(2)
are relatively straightforward, but others clearly require
interpretation by EPA through rulemaking, or recommendations through
guidance, in order to give specific meaning for a particular NAAQS.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ For example, section 110(a)(2)(E) provides that states must
provide assurances that they have adequate legal authority under
state and local law to carry out the SIP; section 110(a)(2)(C)
provides that states must have a substantive program to address
certain sources as required by part C of the CAA; section
110(a)(2)(G) provides that states must have both legal authority to
address emergencies and substantive contingency plans in the event
of such an emergency.
    \3\ For example, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requires EPA to be sure
that each state's SIP contains adequate provisions to prevent
significant contribution to nonattainment of the NAAQS in other
states. This provision contains numerous terms that require
substantial rulemaking by EPA in order to determine such basic
points as what constitutes significant contribution. See, e.g.,
``Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and
Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule); Revisions to Acid Rain Program;
Revisions to the NOx SIP Call; Final Rule,'' 70 FR 25162
(May 12, 2005) (defining, among other things, the phrase
``contribute significantly to nonattainment'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Notwithstanding that section 110(a)(2) states that ``each'' SIP
submission must meet the list of requirements therein, EPA has long
noted that this literal reading of the statute is internally
inconsistent, insofar as section 110(a)(2)(I) pertains to nonattainment
SIP requirements that could not be met on the schedule provided for
these SIP submissions in section 110(a)(1).\4\ This illustrates that
EPA must determine which provisions of section 110(a)(2) may be
applicable for a given infrastructure SIP submission. Similarly, EPA
has previously decided that it could take action on different parts of
the larger, general ``infrastructure SIP'' for a given NAAQS without
concurrent action on all subsections, such as section 110(a)(2)(D)(i),
because the Agency bifurcated the action on these latter ``interstate
transport'' provisions within section 110(a)(2) and worked with states
to address each of the four prongs of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) with
substantive administrative actions proceeding on different tracks with
different schedules.\5\ This illustrates that EPA

may conclude that subdividing the applicable requirements of section
110(a)(2) into separate SIP actions may sometimes be appropriate for a
given NAAQS where a specific substantive action is necessitated, beyond
a mere submission addressing basic structural aspects of the State's
implementation plan. Finally, EPA notes that not every element of
section 110(a)(2) would be relevant, or as relevant, or relevant in the
same way, for each new or revised NAAQS and the attendant
infrastructure SIP submission for that NAAQS. For example, the
monitoring requirements that might be necessary for purposes of section
110(a)(2)(B) for one NAAQS could be very different than what might be
necessary for a different pollutant. Thus, the content of an
infrastructure SIP submission to meet this element from a state might
be very different for an entirely new NAAQS, versus a minor revision to
an existing NAAQS.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See, e.g., Id., 70 FR 25162, at 63-65 (May 12, 2005)
(explaining relationship between timing requirement of section
110(a)(2)(D) versus section 110(a)(2)(I)).
    \5\ EPA issued separate guidance to states with respect to SIP
submissions to meet section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 ozone and
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. See, ``Guidance for State
Implementation Plan (SIP) Submissions to Meet Current Outstanding
Obligations Under Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-Hour Ozone and
PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards,'' from
William T. Harnett, Director Air Quality Policy Division OAQPS, to
Regional Air Division Director, Regions I-X, dated August 15, 2006.
    \6\ For example, implementation of the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS required the deployment of a system of new monitors to measure
ambient levels of that new indicator species for the new NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, EPA notes that other types of SIP submissions required
under the statute also must meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2),
and this also demonstrates the need to identify the applicable elements
for other SIP submissions. For example, nonattainment SIPs required by
part D likewise have to meet the relevant subsections of section
110(a)(2) such as section 110(a)(2)(A) or (E). By contrast, it is clear
that nonattainment SIPs would not need to meet the portion of section
110(a)(2)(C) that pertains to part C, i.e., the PSD requirement
applicable in attainment areas. Nonattainment SIPs required by part D
also would not need to address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G)
with respect to emergency episodes, as such requirements would not be
limited to nonattainment areas. As this example illustrates, each type
of SIP submission may implicate some subsections of section 110(a)(2)
and not others.
    Given the potential for ambiguity of the statutory language of
section 110(a)(1) and (2), EPA believes that it is appropriate for EPA
to interpret that language in the context of acting on the
infrastructure SIPs for a given NAAQS. Because of the inherent
ambiguity of the list of requirements in section 110(a)(2), EPA has
adopted an approach in which it reviews infrastructure SIPs against
this list of elements ``as applicable.'' In other words, EPA assumes
that Congress could not have intended that each and every SIP
submission, regardless of the purpose of the submission or the NAAQS in
question, would meet each of the requirements, or meet each of them in
the same way. EPA elected to use guidance to make recommendations for
infrastructure SIPs for these NAAQS.
    On October 2, 2007, EPA issued guidance making recommendations for
the infrastructure SIP submissions for both the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
and the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.\7\ Within this guidance document,
EPA described the duty of states to make these submissions to meet what
the Agency characterized as the ``infrastructure'' elements for SIPs,
which it further described as the ``basic SIP requirements, including
emissions inventories, monitoring, and modeling to assure attainment
and maintenance of the standards.'' \8\ As further identification of
these basic structural SIP requirements, ``attachment A'' to the
guidance document included a short description of the various elements
of section 110(a)(2) and additional information about the types of
issues that EPA considered germane in the context of such
infrastructure SIPs. EPA emphasized that the description of the basic
requirements listed on attachment A was not intended ``to constitute an
interpretation of'' the requirements, and was merely a ``brief
description of the required elements.'' \9\ EPA also stated its belief
that with one exception, these requirements were ``relatively self
explanatory, and past experience with SIPs for other NAAQS should
enable States to meet these requirements with assistance from EPA
Regions.'' \10\ For the one exception to that general assumption,
however, i.e., how states should proceed with respect to the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS, EPA gave much more specific recommendations. But for other
infrastructure SIP submittals, and for certain elements of the
submittals for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA assumed that each
state would work with its corresponding EPA regional office to refine
the scope of a State's submittal based on an assessment of how the
requirements of section 110(a)(2) should reasonably apply to the basic
structure of the State's implementation plan for the NAAQS in question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See, ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Section
110(a)(1) and (2) for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and PM2.5
National Ambient Air Quality Standards,'' from William T. Harnett,
Director, Air Quality Policy Division, to Air Division Directors,
Regions I-X, dated October 2, 2007 (the ``2007 Guidance''). EPA
issued comparable guidance for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
entitled ``Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections
110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle
(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS),''
from William T. Harnett, Director, Air Quality Policy Division, to
Regional Air Division Directors, Regions I-X, dated September 25,
2009 (the ``2009 Guidance'').
    \8\ Id., at page 2.
    \9\ Id., at attachment A, page 1.
    \10\ Id., at page 4. In retrospect, the concerns raised by
commenters with respect to EPA's approach to some substantive issues
indicates that the statute is not so ``self explanatory,'' and
indeed is sufficiently ambiguous that EPA needs to interpret it in
order to explain why these substantive issues do not need to be
addressed in the context of infrastructure SIPs and may be addressed
at other times and by other means.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Significantly, the 2007 Guidance did not explicitly refer to the
SSM, director's discretion, minor source NSR, or NSR Reform issues as
among specific substantive issues EPA expected states to address in the
context of the infrastructure SIPs, nor did EPA give any more specific
recommendations with respect to how states might address such issues
even if they elected to do so. The SSM and director's discretion issues
implicate section 110(a)(2)(A), and the minor source NSR and NSR Reform
issues implicate section 110(a)(2)(C). In the 2007 Guidance, however,
EPA did not indicate to states that it intended to interpret these
provisions as requiring a substantive submission to address these
specific issues in the context of the infrastructure SIPs for these
NAAQS. Instead, EPA's 2007 Guidance merely indicated its belief that
the states should make submissions in which they established that they
have the basic SIP structure necessary to implement, maintain, and
enforce the NAAQS. EPA believes that states can establish that they
have the basic SIP structure, notwithstanding that there may be
potential deficiencies within the existing SIP. Thus, EPA's proposals
mentioned these issues not because the Agency considers them issues
that must be addressed in the context of an infrastructure SIP as
required by section 110(a)(1) and (2), but rather because EPA wanted to
be clear that it considers these potential existing SIP problems as
separate from the pending infrastructure SIP actions.
    EPA believes that this approach to the infrastructure SIP
requirement is reasonable, because it would not be feasible to read
section 110(a)(1) and (2) to require a top to bottom, stem to stern,
review of each and every provision of an existing SIP merely for
purposes of assuring that the state in question has the basic
structural elements for a functioning SIP for a new or revised NAAQS.
Because SIPs have grown by accretion over the decades as statutory

and regulatory requirements under the CAA have evolved, they may
include some outmoded provisions and historical artifacts that, while
not fully up to date, nevertheless may not pose a significant problem
for the purposes of ``implementation, maintenance, and enforcement'' of
a new or revised NAAQS when EPA considers the overall effectiveness of
the SIP. To the contrary, EPA believes that a better approach is for
EPA to determine which specific SIP elements from section 110(a)(2) are
applicable to an infrastructure SIP for a given NAAQS, and to focus
attention on those elements that are most likely to need a specific SIP
revision in light of the new or revised NAAQS. Thus, for example, EPA's
2007 Guidance specifically directed states to focus on the requirements
of section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS because of
the absence of underlying EPA regulations for emergency episodes for
this NAAQS and an anticipated absence of relevant provisions in
existing SIPs.
    Finally, EPA believes that its approach is a reasonable reading of
section 110(a)(1) and (2) because the statute provides other avenues
and mechanisms to address specific substantive deficiencies in existing
SIPs. These other statutory tools allow the Agency to take appropriate
tailored action, depending upon the nature and severity of the alleged
SIP deficiency. Section 110(k)(5) authorizes EPA to issue a ``SIP
Call'' whenever the Agency determines that a state's SIP is
substantially inadequate to attain or maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate
interstate transport, or otherwise to comply with the CAA.\11\ Section
110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct errors in past actions, such as
past approvals of SIP submissions.\12\ Significantly, EPA's
determination that an action on the infrastructure SIP is not the
appropriate time and place to address all potential existing SIP
problems does not preclude the Agency's subsequent reliance on
provisions in section 110(a)(2) as part of the basis for action at a
later time. For example, although it may not be appropriate to require
a state to eliminate all existing inappropriate director's discretion
provisions in the course of acting on the infrastructure SIP, EPA
believes that section 110(a)(2)(A) may be among the statutory bases
that the Agency cites in the course of addressing the issue in a
subsequent action.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ EPA has recently issued a SIP call to rectify a specific
SIP deficiency related to the SSM issue. See, ``Finding of
Substantial Inadequacy of Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State
Implementation Plan Revision,'' 74 FR 21639 (April 18, 2011).
    \12\ EPA has recently utilized this authority to correct errors
in past actions on SIP submissions related to PSD programs. See,
``Limitation of Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration
Provisions Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State
Implementation Plans; Final Rule,'' 75 FR 82536 (December 30, 2010).
EPA has previously used its authority under CAA 110(k)(6) to remove
numerous other SIP provisions that the Agency determined it had
approved in error. See, e.g., 61 FR 38664 (July 25, 1996) and 62 FR
34641 (June 27, 1997) (corrections to American Samoa, Arizona,
California, Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69 FR 67062 (November 16,
2004) (corrections to California SIP); and 74 FR 57051 (November 3,
2009) (corrections to Arizona and Nevada SIPs).
    \13\ EPA has recently disapproved a SIP submission from Colorado
on the grounds that it would have included a director's discretion
provision inconsistent with CAA requirements, including section
110(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., 75 FR 42342 at 42344 (July 21,2010)
(proposed disapproval of director's discretion provisions); 76 FR
4540 (January 26, 2011) (final disapproval of such provisions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Final Action

    EPA is taking final action to approve Kansas' submittals that
provide the basic program elements to meet the applicable requirements
in CAA sections 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C), (D) (ii), (E), (F), (G), (H),
(J), (K), (L), and (M) necessary to implement, maintain, and enforce
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    As explained in the proposed rulemaking, this action does not
address the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS, because it has already been addressed in a prior
rulemaking. See 72 FR 10608.\14\ The scope of this action is further
discussed in section III, above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Subsequent to this prior approval, updated modeling in
support of the proposed Transport Rule (75 FR 45210) has indicated
that emissions from Kansas sources significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS in downwind areas. Therefore, EPA believes that the previously
approved Kansas SIP may no longer adequately address these
emissions. Therefore, in a separate action, EPA has proposed to find
that the SIP revision approved on March 9, 2007 is substantially
inadequate pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). If EPA finalizes
this proposed finding with respect to Kansas, EPA also proposed that
Kansas would be required to revise its SIP to correct these
deficiencies. See 76 FR 763 (January 6, 2011) for more details.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State
law. For those reasons, this 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.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as amended 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. 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 CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Courtof Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by September 9, 2011. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review, nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone.

    Dated: June 28, 2011.
Karl Brooks,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.
    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart R--Kansas

0
2. In Sec.  52.870(e) the table is amended by adding an entry in
numerical order to read as follows:

Sec.  52.870  Identification of plan

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                                  EPA-Approved Kansas Nonregulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Name of non-regulatory SIP        Applicable          State
           revision              geographic area   submittal date     EPA approval date         Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
(32) Section 110(a)(2)          Statewide........      01/08/2008  07/11/2011 [Insert      This action addresses
 Infrastructure Requirements                           07/20/2009   citation of             the following CAA
 for the 1997 8-Hour Ozone                                          publication].           elements, as
 NAAQS.                                                                                applicable:
                                                                                110(a)(2)(A), (B),
                                                                                (C), (D)(ii), (E),
                                                                                (F), (G), (H), (J),
                                                                                (K), (L), and (M)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2011-17190 Filed 7-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 98 (Tuesday, May 21, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 29680-29683]
[FR Doc No: 2013-12030]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2013-0320]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Chicago Harbor, Navy Pier Southeast, Chicago, IL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to amend the Safety Zone for Chicago
Harbor, Navy Pier Southeast, Chicago, IL. This Zone is intended to
restrict vessels from a portion of Chicago Harbor during fireworks
displays, races, and other marine events that occur throughout each
calendar year. The safety zone established by this proposed rule is
necessary to protect spectators, participants, and vessels from the
hazards associated with these fireworks displays, boat races, and other
events.

DATES: Comments and related materials must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before June 20, 2013.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2013-0320 using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (4) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or email Petty Officer Joseph McCollum, U.S. Coast Guard
Sector Lake Michigan; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Barbara Hairston, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
CFR Code of Federal Regulations

A. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided.

1. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online at
http://www.regulations.gov, or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but
please use only one of these means. If you submit a comment online, it
will be considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully
transmit the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment,
it will be considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when
it is received at the Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you
include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a
telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact
you if we have questions regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
type the docket number (USCG-2012-0320) in the ``SEARCH'' box and click

``SEARCH.'' Click on ``Submit a Comment'' on the line associated with
this rulemaking.
    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would
like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and
material received during the comment period and may change the rule
based on your comments.

2. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
type the docket number (USCG-2012-0320) in the ``SEARCH'' box and click
``SEARCH.'' Click on ``OPEN DOCKET FOLDER'' on the line associated with
this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in
Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation
West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

3. Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008 issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

4. Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting, but you may submit a
request for one using one of the four methods specified under
ADDRESSES. Please explain why you believe a public meeting would be
beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will
hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal
Register.

B. Basis and Purpose

    Each year dozens of fireworks displays are launched from barges in
positions just south of the Navy Pier in Chicago. These fireworks
displays, along with other marine events, take place on a monthly and
sometimes weekly basis. The Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan, has
determined that these fireworks displays and other events such as races
or air shows pose a significant risk to public safety and property.
Such hazards include falling debris and collisions among spectator
vessels. To address these hazards, the Coast Guard established a
permanent safety zone for the protection of spectators during these
displays and events in 33 CFR 165.931. This year, however, the Coast
Guard was informed by Melrose Pyrotechnics that a new launch position
will be used for some of the fireworks displays. This new position
launches a display from a break wall south of the Navy Pier and would
impact portions of Chicago Harbor hundreds of feet beyond the
boundaries of the zone as it is currently listed. To address this new
launch position, and to ensure safety of spectators and vessels, this
rule proposes to extend the boundaries of the safety zone within 33 CFR
165.931.

C. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan, has determined that a
safety zone is necessary to mitigate the aforementioned safety risks.
Thus, this rule proposes to amend 33 CFR 165.931 to establish the
following area as a safety zone: The waters of Lake Michigan within
Chicago Harbor bounded by coordinates beginning at 41[deg]53'26.5'' N,
087[deg]35'26.5'' W; then south to 41[deg]53'7.6'' N, 087[deg]35'26.3''
W; then west to 41[deg]53'7.6'' N, 087[deg]36'23.2'' W; then north to
41[deg]53'26.5'' N, 087[deg]36'24.6'' W; then east back to the point of
origin (NAD 83).
    This proposed rule will amend 33 CFR 165.931 and update the
permanent safety zone on Lake Michigan within Chicago harbor. The
Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan will notify the public when the
safety zone in this proposed rule will be enforced. Consistent with 33
CFR 165.7(a), such means may include, among other things, publication
in the Federal Register, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, Local Notice to
Mariners, or, upon request, by facsimile (fax). Also, the Captain of
the Port will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners notifying the public
if enforcement these safety zones in this section are cancelled
prematurely.
    Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the proposed safety
zone during the period of enforcement is prohibited unless authorized
by the Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan, or his designated
representative. The Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan, or his
designated representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

D. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on these statutes or executive orders.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits
under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not ``significant''
under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of
Homeland Security. We conclude that this proposed rule is not a
significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have
minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies,
will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients,
and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zone
established by this proposed rule will be enforced in short periods
immediately before, during, and after the time the displays and events
occur. Also, the safety zone is designed to minimize its impact on
navigable waters and has been designed to allow vessels to transit
unrestricted to portions of the waterways not affected by the safety
zones. Thus, restrictions on vessel movements within any particular
area are expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions, moreover,
vessels may still transit through the safety zone when permitted by the
Captain of the Port. On the whole, the Coast Guard expects
insignificant adverse impact to mariners from the enforcement of this
safety zone.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    This proposed rule would affect the following entities, some of
which might be small entities: the owners and

operators of vessels intending to transit or anchor in portions of
Chicago Harbor when this safety zone is being enforced.
    This proposed safety zone will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following
reasons discussed in the above Regulatory Planning and Review section.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed rule
would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment
(see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to
what degree this rule would economically affect it.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the rule would affect
your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you
have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT, above. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this proposed rule or any
policy or action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and
determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

6. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

8. Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule would not affect a taking of private property or
otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630,
Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected
Property Rights.

9. Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize
litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

10. Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045,
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This proposed rule is not an economically significant rule and
would not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that
might disproportionately affect children.

11. Indian Tribal Governments

    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

12. Energy Effects

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant energy action'' under
Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

    This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a
category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule
involves the establishment of safety zones and thus, is categorically
excluded under paragraph (34)(g) of the Instruction. An environmental
analysis checklist supporting this determination is available in the
docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or
information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and record
keeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapters 701, 3306, 3703;
50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub.
L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.
0
2. Revise Sec.  165.931 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.931  Safety Zone; Chicago Harbor, Navy Pier Southeast,
Chicago, IL.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: The waters of
Lake Michigan within Chicago Harbor bounded by coordinates beginning at
41[deg]53'26.5'' N, 087[deg]35'26.5'' W; then south to 41[deg]53'7.6''
N, 087[deg]35'26.3'' W; then west to 41[deg]53'7.6'' N,
087[deg]36'23.2'' W; then north to 41[deg]53'26.5'' N,
087[deg]36'24.6'' W then east back to the point of origin (NAD 83).
    (b) Definitions. The following definitions apply to this section:
    (1) ``Designated representative'' means any Coast Guard
Commissioned, warrant, or petty officer designated by the Captain of
the Port, Lake Michigan to monitor a safety zone, permit entry

into the zone, give legally enforceable orders to persons or vessels
within the zone, and take other actions authorized by the Captain of
the Port.
    (2) ``Public vessel'' means vessels owned, chartered, or operated
by the United States, or by a State or political subdivision thereof.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
33 CFR 165.23 of this part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within
this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the
Port, Lake Michigan, or his designated representative.
    (2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, excepted as
may be permitted by the Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan or his
designated representative. All persons and vessels must comply with the
instructions of the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or his designated
representative. Upon being hailed by the U.S. Coast Guard by siren,
radio, flashing light or other means, the operator of a vessel shall
proceed as directed.
    (3) All vessels must obtain permission from the Captain of the Port
or his designated representative to enter, move within, or exit the
safety zone established in this section when this safety zone is
enforced. Vessels and persons granted permission to enter the safety
zone must obey all lawful orders or directions of the Captain of the
Port or a designated representative. While within a safety zone, all
vessels must operate at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe
course.
    (d) Notice of enforcement or suspension of enforcement. The safety
zone established by this section will be enforced only upon notice of
the Captain of the Port. The Captain of the Port will cause notice of
enforcement of the safety zone established by this section to be made
by all appropriate means to the affected segments of the public
including publication in the Federal Register as practicable, in
accordance with 33 CFR 165.7(a). Such means of notification may also
include, but are not limited to Broadcast Notice to Mariners or Local
Notice to Mariners.
    (e) Exemption. Public vessels, as defined in paragraph (b) of this
section, are exempt from the requirements in this section.
    (f) Waiver. For any vessel, the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan
or his designated representative may waive any of the requirements of
this section, upon finding that operational conditions or other
circumstances are such that application of this section is unnecessary
or impractical for the purposes of public or environmental safety.

    Dated: May 3, 2013.
M.W. Sibley,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan.
[FR Doc. 2013-12030 Filed 5-20-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 191 (Tuesday, October 2, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 60053-60056]
[FR Doc No: 2012-24095]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2012-0381; FRL- 9735-7]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Delaware; Requirements for Prevention of Significant Deterioration and
Nonattainment New Source Review; Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision
submitted by the State of Delaware on March 14, 2012. This SIP revision
pertaining to Delaware's Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
and nonattainment New Source Review (NSR) programs incorporates
preconstruction permitting requirements for fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) into the Delaware SIP. In addition, EPA is approving
SIP revisions and portions of SIP submissions for the purpose of
determining that Delaware has met its statutory obligations with
respect to the infrastructure requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA)
which relate to Delaware's PSD permitting program and are necessary to
implement, maintain, and enforce the 1997 national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS) for PM2.5 and ozone, the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 2008 lead NAAQS. EPA is approving these
revisions in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act
(CAA).

DATES: This final rule is effective on November 1, 2012.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2012-0381. All documents in the docket are listed in
the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the electronic
docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e., 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 either electronically
through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy for public inspection
during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are
available at the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and
Environmental Control, 89 Kings Highway, P.O. Box 1401, Dover, Delaware
19903.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gerallyn Duke,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Throughout this document, whenever ``we,'' ``us,'' or ``our'' is
used, we mean EPA. On August 1, 2012 (77 FR 45527), EPA published a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the State of Delaware. The NPR
proposed approval of a SIP revision pertaining to Delaware's Prevention
of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and nonattainment New Source Review
(NSR) programs which incorporates preconstruction permitting
requirements for fine particulate matter (PM2.5) into the
Delaware SIP. In addition, EPA proposed approval of SIP revisions and
portions of SIP submissions for the purpose of determining that
Delaware has met its statutory obligations with respect to the
infrastructure requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) which relate to
Delaware's PSD permitting program and are necessary to implement,
maintain, and enforce the 1997 PM2.5 and ozone NAAQS, the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, and the 2008 lead NAAQS. The formal SIP
revision was submitted by Delaware on March 14, 2012.
    The purpose of this SIP revision is to incorporate the PSD and
nonattainment preconstruction permitting requirements for
PM2.5 that are set forth in two Federal rules. The first is
the ``Implementation of the New Source Review (NSR) Program for
Particulate Matter less than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)'' (NSR
PM2.5 Rule), which was promulgated on May 16, 2008 (73 FR
28321). The second is the ``Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) for Particulate Matter less than 2.5 Micrometers
(PM2.5)--Increments, Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and
Significant Monitoring Concentration (SMC)'' (PSD PM2.5
Rule), which was promulgated on October 20, 2010 (75 FR 64864).

II. Summary of SIP Revision

    The SIP revision consists of amendments to sections 1.0, 2.0, and
3.0 of 7 DE Admin. Code 1125, ``Requirements for Preconstruction
Review.'' The amendments establish the major source threshold,
significant emission rate and offset ratios for PM2.5,
establish NOX and SO2 as precursors to
PM2.5, and establish the allowance for interpollutant
trading for offsets and NSR applicability to PM2.5 precursor
pollutants, pursuant to the May 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule. In
addition, the amendments add maximum allowable ambient pollutant
concentrations (increments), an SMC for PM2.5 pursuant to
the October 2010 PSD PM2.5 Rule, and SILs. As discussed in
the NPR, we do not consider the SILs to be a mandatory SIP element, and
in light of litigation before the U.S. Court of Appeals (D.C. Circuit),
we are taking no action at this time with regard to new section 3.9 of
DE Admin. Code 1125, ``Source Impact Analysis.''
    Other specific requirements of the regulations and the rationale
for EPA's proposed action are explained in the NPR and will not be
restated here. No public comments were received on the NPR.

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving the March 14, 2012 SIP submission pertaining to
Delaware's PSD and nonattainment NSR programs to incorporate the
preconstruction permitting requirements for PM2.5 as a
revision to the Delaware SIP, with the exception for the portion of the
SIP submission concerning the implementation of SILs for
PM2.5. Additionally, in light of this SIP revision, EPA is
approving the portions of Delaware's December 13, 2007, March 12, 2008,
September 19, 2008, September 16, 2009, and April 1, 2010
infrastructure SIP submittals which address the obligations set forth
at CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) relating to Delaware's PSD permit
program for the 1997 PM2.5 and ozone NAAQS as well as for
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Finally, in light of Delaware's
submission dated October 17, 2011 and the March 2012 SIP revision which
address the obligations set forth at CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C),
(D)(i)(II) and (J) relating to the Delaware's PSD permit program, EPA
has determined that Delaware's SIP meets the statutory obligations
relating to its PSD permit program set forth at CAA sections
110(a)(2)(C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) for the 2008 lead NAAQS.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA 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
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive 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.

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    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. 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).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by December 3, 2012. 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 pertaining to NSR requirements for PM2.5
may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements.
(See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: September 18, 2012.
W.C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart I--Delaware

0
2. In Sec.  52.420, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by revising
the entries for Regulation 1125, sections 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0 in
numerical order, to read as follows:

Sec.  52.420  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                  EPA-Approved Regulations in the Delaware SIP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  State regulation (7 DNREC                         State                                           Additional
            1100)              Title/subject   effective date          EPA approval date           explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  1125 Requirements for Preconstruction Review
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 1.0.................  General                 2/11/12  10/2/12 [Insert page number       Added 4 terms,
                               Provisions.                      where the document begins].       Revised 5
                                                                                terms. Note:
                                                                                In section
                                                                                1.9, the
                                                                                previous SIP-
                                                                                approved
                                                                                baseline dates
                                                                                for sulfur
                                                                                dioxide,
                                                                                particulate
                                                                                matter, and
                                                                                nitrogen
                                                                                dioxide in the
                                                                                definition of
                                                                                ``Baseline
                                                                                Date'' remain
                                                                                part of the
                                                                                SIP.
Section 2.0.................  Emission Offset         2/11/12  10/2/12 [Insert page number       Added Section
                               Provisions                       where the document begins].       2.2.5, <IP_ADDRESS>
                               (EOP).                                                             and 2.5.7
Section 3.0.................  Prevention of           2/11/12  10/2/12 [Insert page number       Revised Section
                               Significant                      where the document begins].       3.2 and
                               Deterioration                                                      <IP_ADDRESS>. Note:
                               of Air Quality.                                                    Previous SIP-
                                                                                approved
                                                                                revisions to
                                                                                Section 3.1
                                                                                for nitrogen
                                                                                dioxide
                                                                                increments and
                                                                                Section 3.9A
                                                                                (now
                                                                                designated as
                                                                                Section
                                                                                3.10.1) for
                                                                                air quality
                                                                                models remain
                                                                                part of the
                                                                                SIP.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2012-24095 Filed 10-1-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: November 19, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 224)]
[Notices]
[Page 69633]
[DOCID:fr19no08-77]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. EL08-88-000; ER08-1178-000; ER09-213-000]

California Independent System Operator Corporation; Notice of
Submission of Technical Conference Presentations

November 12, 2008.
    On November 6, 2008, the Commission convened a staff technical
conference in the above-captioned proceedings. The purpose of the
technical conference was to further explore the justness and
reasonableness of the California Independent System Operator
Corporation's (CAISO) Exceptional Dispatch mechanism and proposed
mitigation plan. At this time, the Commission hereby posts, in the
above-captioned dockets, copies of the Power Point presentations made
by the CAISO at the November 6, 2008 technical conference.
    All interested persons may file written comments on these
presentations and/or issues related to Exceptional Dispatch on or
before November 24, 2008. Reply comments will be due on or before
December 2, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-27376 Filed 11-18-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: June 18, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 117)]
[Notices]
[Page 34745-34746]
[DOCID:fr18jn10-73]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2010-N-0267]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Survey on Consumers' Emotional and Cognitive Reactions
to Food Recalls

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an
opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain
information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(the PRA), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information and
to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This
notice solicits comments on a survey on Consumers' Emotional and
Cognitive Reactions to Food Recalls.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection
of information by August 17, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit electronic comments on the collection of information
to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments on the
collection of information to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-
305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, rm. 1061,
Rockville, MD 20852. All comments should be identified with the docket
number found in brackets in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Denver Presley, Jr., Office of
Information Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr.,
PI50-400B, Rockville, MD 20850,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal
agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor.
``Collection of information'' is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR
1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of
the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a
third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A))
requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the Federal
Register concerning each proposed collection of information before
submitting the collection to OMB for approval. To comply with this
requirement, FDA is publishing notice of the proposed collection of
information set forth in this document.
    With respect to the following collection of information, FDA
invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection
of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's
functions, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways
to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents,
including through the use of automated collection techniques, when
appropriate, and other forms of information technology.

Survey on Consumers' Emotional and Cognitive Reactions to Food
Recalls--21 U.S.C. 393(d)(2)(C) (OMB Control Number 0910-NEW)

I. Background

    The proposed ``Survey on Consumers' Emotional and Cognitive
Reactions to Food Recalls'' will be conducted under a cooperative
agreement between the Joint Institute for Food Safety and Applied
Nutrition (JIFSAN) and the Center for Risk Communication Research at
the University of Maryland. JIFSAN was established in 1996 and is a
public and private partnership between FDA and the University of
Maryland. The Center for Risk Communication Research will design and
administer the study.
    The proposed study will assess consumers' emotional and cognitive
recollection of certain food recalls and gauge how these recollections
affect their current perceptions about food recalls and their
inclination to adhere to future recommended food recall behaviors.
Existing data show that many consumers do not take appropriate
protective actions during a foodborne illness outbreak or food recall
(Refs. 1

and 2). For example, 41 percent of U.S. consumers say they have never
looked for any recalled product in their home (Ref. 2). Conversely,
some consumers overreact to the announcement of a foodborne illness
outbreak or food recall. In response to the 2006 fresh, bagged spinach
recall which followed a multistate outbreak of Escherichia coli O157:
H7 infections (Ref. 3), 18 percent of consumers said they stopped
buying other bagged, fresh produce because of the spinach recall (Ref.
1).
    Research shows that emotion plays a large role in decisionmaking,
and that individuals may not be conscious of its effects on their
behavior (Ref. 4). For example, when people are angry they are likely
to place blame, take action, and want justice to be served (Ref. 5). If
a particular food recall engenders widespread anger and the anger is
coupled with behavior that is less than desirable from a food safety or
nutritional standpoint, it is possible that anger will be the lens
through which future food recall situations are viewed, thus resulting
in similar undesirable behaviors. Findings from this study will help
FDA understand the emotional response to food recalls. This will help
FDA to design more effective consumer food recall messages during and
after a recall.
    FDA conducts research and educational and public information
programs relating to food safety under its broad statutory authority,
set forth in section 903(b)(2) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act (the act) (21 U.S.C. 393(b)(2)), to protect the public health by
ensuring that foods are ``safe, wholesome, sanitary, and properly
labeled,'' and in section 903(d)(2)(C), to conduct research relating to
foods, drugs, cosmetics, and devices in carrying out the act.
    FDA plans to survey U.S. consumers using a Web-based panel of U.S.
households to collect information on consumers' cognitive and emotional
reaction to food recalls. The survey will query consumers on their
recollection of food recalls within the past 5 years; attitude toward
recalled foods; knowledge about particular food recalls; behavior
during the food recall; assessment and appraisals of susceptibility,
severity, satisfaction, and self-efficacy.
    The data will be collected using an online survey. A pool of 10,000
consumers from a Web-based consumer panel will be screened for
eligibility based on age (18+ years) and familiarity with recent food
recalls. One thousand of those screened consumers will be randomly
selected to participate in the survey. The results of the survey will
not be used to generate population estimates.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                                     Table 1.--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden\1\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              No. of         Annual Frequency       Total Annual        Hours per
                       Activity                            Respondents         per Response          Responses           Response         Total Hours
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Screener                                                           10,000                     1             10,000               .006                 60
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pre-test                                                               40                     1                 40               .167                  7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Survey                                                              1,000                     1              1,000               .167                167
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total                                                              11,040                     1             11,040  .................                234
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

    Ten thousand members of a Web-based consumer panel will be
screened. We estimate that it will take a respondent 20 seconds (.006
hours) to complete the screening questions, for a total of 60 hours. We
will conduct a pre-test of the survey with 40 respondents; we estimate
that it will take a respondent 10 minutes (.167 hours) to complete the
pre-test, for a total of 7 hours. One thousand (1,000) respondents will
complete the survey. We estimate that it will take a respondent 10
minutes (.167 hours) to complete the survey, for a total of 167 hours.
Thus, the total estimated burden is 234 hours.

II. References

    1. Cuite, C., S. Condry, M. Nucci, et al., ``Public Response to
the Contaminated Spinach Recall of 2006,'' Publication number RR-
0107-013, New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers, the State University of New
Jersey, Food Policy Institute, 2007.
    2. Hallman, W., C. Cuite, and N. Hooker, ``Consumer Responses to
Food Recalls: 2009 National Survey Report,'' Publication number RR-
0109-018, New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers, the State University of New
Jersey, Food Policy Institute, 2009.
    3. Acheson, D., ``Outbreak of Escherichia coli 0157 Infections
Associated With Fresh Spinach--United States, August-September
2006,'' 2007 (http://first.fda.gov/cafdas/documents/Acheson_
Spinach_Outbreak_2006_FDA_pres.ppt).
    4. Han, S., J. S. Lerner, and D. Keltner, ``Feelings and
Consumer Decision Making: The Appraisal-Tendency Framework,''
Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17(3) 158-168, 2007.
    5. Lazurus, R. S., ``Emotion and Adaptation,'' New York: Oxford
University Press, 1991.

    Dated: June 14, 2010.
David Dorsey,
Acting Deputy Commissioner for Policy, Planning and Budget.
[FR Doc. 2010-14815 Filed 6-17-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 140 (Monday, July 22, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43900-43901]
[FR Doc No: 2013-17453]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2013-0002: Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1331]

Changes in Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice lists communities where the addition or
modification of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths,
Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or
the regulatory floodway (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard
determinations), as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and
where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS)
reports, prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for
each community, is appropriate because of new scientific or technical
data. The FIRM, and where applicable, portions of the FIS report, have
been revised to reflect these flood hazard determinations through
issuance of a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR), in accordance with Title
44, Part 65 of the Code of Federal Regulations (44 CFR Part 65). The
LOMR will be used by insurance agents and others to calculate
appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the
contents of those buildings. For rating purposes, the currently
effective community number is shown in the table below and must be used
for all new policies and renewals.

DATES: These flood hazard determinations will become effective on the
dates listed in the table below and revise the FIRM panels and FIS
report in effect prior to this determination for the listed
communities.
    From the date of the second publication of notification of these
changes in a newspaper of local circulation, any person has ninety (90)
days in which to request through the community that the Deputy
Associate Administrator for Mitigation reconsider the changes. The
flood hazard determination information may be changed during the 90-day
period.

ADDRESSES: The affected communities are listed in the table below.
Revised flood hazard information for each community is available for
inspection at both the online location and the respective community map
repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current
effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online
through the FEMA Map Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.
    Submit comments and/or appeals to the Chief Executive Officer of
the community as listed in the table below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering
Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration,
FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
(email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or visit the FEMA Map Information
eXchange (FMIX) online at www.floodmaps.fema.gov/fhm/fmx_main.html.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The specific flood hazard determinations are
not described for each community in this notice. However, the online
location and local community map repository address where the flood
hazard determination information is available for inspection is
provided.
    Any request for reconsideration of flood hazard determinations must
be submitted to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed
in the table below.
    The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood
Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance
with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.,
and with 44 CFR Part 65.
    The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management
measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show
evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified
for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
    These flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain
management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are
required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must
change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their
floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact
stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by
other Federal, State, or regional entities. The flood hazard
determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
    The affected communities are listed in the following table. Flood
hazard determination information for each community is available for
inspection at both the online location and the respective community map
repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current
effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are

accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Chief executive                       Online location
        State and county          Location and case      officer of        Community map     of Letter of Map        Effective date of        Community
                                         No.              community          repository          Revision              modification              No.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Texas:
    Dallas.....................  City of DeSoto (12- The Honorable Carl  Development        http://www.rampp-  June 20, 2013...............       480172
                                  06-3277P).          Sherman, Mayor,     Services           team.com/
                                                      City of DeSoto,     Department, 211    lomrs.htm.
                                                      211 East Pleasant   East Pleasant
                                                      Run Road, DeSoto,   Run Road,
                                                      TX 75115.           DeSoto, TX 75115.
                                 City of Lancaster   The Honorable       City Hall, 211     http://www.rampp-  June 20, 2013...............       480182
                                  (12-06-3277P).      Marcus E. Knight,   North Henry        team.com/
                                                      Mayor, City of      Street,            lomrs.htm.
                                                      Lancaster, 211      Lancaster, TX
                                                      North Henry         75146.
                                                      Street,
                                                      Lancaster, TX
                                                      75146.
    Denton.....................  City of Frisco (12- The Honorable       City Hall, 6101    http://www.rampp-  September 3, 2013...........       480134
                                  06-3923P).          Maher Maso,         Frisco Square      team.com/
                                                      Mayor, City of      Boulevard,         lomrs.htm.
                                                      Frisco, 6101        Frisco, TX 75034.
                                                      Frisco Square
                                                      Boulevard,
                                                      Frisco, TX 75034.
    Harris.....................  City of Pasadena    The Honorable John  1201 Jeff Ginn     http://www.rampp-  August 30, 2013.............       480307
                                  (13-06-0356P).      Isbell, Mayor,      Memorial Drive,    team.com/
                                                      City of Pasadena,   Pasadena, TX       lomrs.htm.
                                                      1211 Southmore      77502.
                                                      Avenue, Pasadena,
                                                      TX 77502.
    Johnson....................  City of Burleson    The Honorable Ken   141 West Renfro    http://www.rampp-  August 29, 2013.............       485459
                                  (12-06-3813P).      D. Shetter,         Street,            team.com/
                                                      Mayor, City of      Burleson, TX       lomrs.htm.
                                                      Burleson, 141       76028.
                                                      West Renfro
                                                      Street, Burleson,
                                                      TX 76028.
    Travis.....................  Unincorporated      The Honorable       Travis County      http://www.rampp-  August 26, 2013.............       481026
                                  areas of Travis     Samuel T. Biscoe,   Permits Counter,   team.com/
                                  County (13-06-      Travis County       700 Lavaca         lomrs.htm.
                                  0775P).             Judge, P.O. Box     Street, Suite
                                                      1748, Austin, TX    547, Austin, TX
                                                      78767.              78701.
Virginia:
    Fairfax....................  Unincorporated      The Honorable       Fairfax County     http://www.rampp-  July 11, 2013...............       515525
                                  areas of Fairfax    Sharon Bulova,      Department of      team.com/
                                  County (13-03-      Chairman-at-        Public Works and   lomrs.htm.
                                  0311P).             Large, Fairfax      Environmental
                                                      County Board of     Services, 12000
                                                      Supervisors,        Government
                                                      12000 Government    Center Parkway,
                                                      Center Parkway,     Suite 449,
                                                      Suite 530,          Fairfax, VA
                                                      Fairfax, VA 22035.  22035.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Dated: July 2, 2013.
Roy E. Wright,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2013-17453 Filed 7-19-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register: February 23, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 34)]
[Notices]
[Page 8093-8094]
[DOCID:fr23fe09-67]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2009-N-0664]

Allergenic Products Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting

AGENCY:  Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION:  Notice.

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

    This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory
committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will
be open to the public.
    Name of Committee: Allergenic Products Advisory Committee.
    General Function of the Committee: To provide advice and
recommendations to the agency on FDA's regulatory issues.
    Date and Time: The meeting will be held on March 18, 2009, from 8
a.m. to approximately 12:30 p.m.
    Location: Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation
and Research, Advisory Committee Conference Room, rm. 1066, 5630
Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD.
    Contact Person: Gail Dapolito or Jane Brown, Food and Drug
Administration (HFM-71), 1401 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852, 301-
827-0314, or FDA Advisory Committee Information Line, 1-800-741-8138
(301-443-0572 in the Washington, DC area), code<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please call
the Information Line for up-to-date information on this meeting. A
notice in the Federal Register about last minute modifications that
impact a previously announced advisory committee meeting cannot always
be published quickly enough to provide timely notice. Therefore, you
should always check the agency's Web site and call the appropriate
advisory committee hot line/phone line to learn about possible
modifications before coming to the meeting.
    Agenda: On March 18, 2009, the committee will discuss (1) a
proposed change of potency assay for short ragweed pollen and cat
allergen extracts from radial immunodiffusion assay to an enzyme-linked
immunosorbent assay and (2) structured product labeling. The committee
will also receive an update on research programs in the Laboratory of
Immunobiochemistry, Division of Bacterial, Parasitic and Allergenic
Products, Office of Vaccines Research and Review, Center for Biologics
Evaluation and Research, FDA.
    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the
background material will be made publicly available at the location of
the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be
posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is
available at http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/acmenu.htm, click on
the year 2009 and scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee
link.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee.
Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before
March 11, 2009. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled
between approximately 10:45 a.m. and 11:45 a.m. Those desiring to make
formal oral presentations should notify the contact person and submit a
brief statement of the general nature of the evidence or arguments they
wish to present, the names and addresses of proposed participants, and
an indication of the approximate time requested to make their
presentation on or before March 3, 2009. Time allotted for each
presentation may be limited. If the number of registrants requesting to
speak is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the
scheduled open public hearing session, FDA may conduct a lottery to
determine the speakers for the scheduled open public hearing session.
The contact person will notify interested persons regarding their
request to speak by March 4, 2009.
    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised
that the

agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical outlets.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special
accommodations due to a disability, please contact Gail Dapolito at
least 7 days in advance of the meeting.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our Web site at http://www.fda.gov/oc/advisory/
default.htm for procedures on public conduct during advisory committee
meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: February 12, 2009.
Randall W. Lutter,
Deputy Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-3786 Filed 2-20-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S