[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 81 (Thursday, April 26, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18362-18364]
[FR Doc No: 2018-08728]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-83079; File No. SR-ISE-2018-35]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Incorporate by
Reference The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC's Consolidated Audit Trail Rules
Into the Rules of Nasdaq ISE

April 20, 2018.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on April 10, 2018, Nasdaq ISE, LLC (``ISE'' or ``Exchange'') filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed
rule change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been
prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to incorporate by reference The Nasdaq Stock
Market LLC's (``Nasdaq'') rule at General 7, entitled ``Consolidated
Audit Trail Compliance'' into ISE's General 7.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://ise.cchwallstreet.com/, at the principal office of
the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to incorporate by reference Nasdaq's rule at
General 7, entitled ``Consolidated Audit Trail Compliance'' into ISE's
General 7. The rule sets are identical.\3\ ISE proposes to remove the
current rule text from

General 7 and replace that rule text with the following text: \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 82601 (January 30,
2018), 83 FR 4949 (February 2, 2018) (SR-Phlx-2018-11); 82604
(January 30, 2018), 83 FR 5154 (February 5, 2018) (SR-NASDAQ-2018-
007); 82597 (January 30, 2018), 83 FR 4942 (February 2, 2018) (SR-
BX-2018-007); 82599 (January 30, 2017), 83 FR 4947 (February 2,
2018) (SR-ISE-2018-09); 82598 (January 30, 2018), 83 FR 4936
(February 2, 2018) (SR-GEMX-2018-02); and 82600 (January 30, 2018),
83 FR 4934 (February 2, 2018) (SR-MRX-2018-03).
    \4\ ISE shall include a hyperlink to Nasdaq's General 7 for ease
of reference.

    The rules contained in The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC General 7, as
such rules may be in effect from time to time (the ``General 7
Rules''), are hereby incorporated by reference into this Nasdaq ISE
General 7, and are thus Nasdaq ISE Rules and thereby applicable to
Nasdaq ISE Members. Nasdaq ISE Members shall comply with the General
7 Rules as though such rules were fully set forth herein. All
defined terms, including any variations thereof, contained in the
General 7 Rules shall be read to refer to the Nasdaq ISE related
meaning of such term. Solely by way of example, and not in
limitation or in exhaustion: The defined term ``Exchange'' in the
General 7 Rules shall be read to refer to the Nasdaq ISE Exchange;
the defined term ``Rule'' in the General 7 Rules shall be read to
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
refer to the Nasdaq ISE Rule.

    Should any rules which impact trading behavior be added to the
Consolidated Audit Trail Compliance Rules in Nasdaq General 7 in the
future, those rules shall not become subject to the incorporation by
reference and shall be placed elsewhere within ISE's Rulebook. The
incorporations by reference of Nasdaq General 7 into ISE's General 7
Rule are regulatory in nature.\5\ The Exchange notes that as a
condition of an exemption, which the Exchange will request and will
need to be approved by the Commission,\6\ ISE agrees to provide written
notice to its members whenever Nasdaq proposes a change to its General
7 Rule.\7\ Such notice will alert ISE members to the proposed Nasdaq
rule change and give them an opportunity to comment on the proposal.
ISE will similarly inform its members in writing when the SEC approves
any such proposed change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The General 7 Rules are categories of rules that are not
trading rules. See 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(76) (contemplating such
requests). In addition, several other SROs incorporate by reference
certain regulatory rules of another SRO and have received from the
Commission similar exemptions from Section 19(b) of the Exchange
Act. See e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 57478 (March 12,
2008), 73 FR 14521 (March 18, 2008), 53128 (January 13, 2006), 71 FR
3550 (January 23, 2006); 49260 (February 17, 2004), 69 FR 8500
(February 24, 2004).
    \6\ The Exchange will request an exemption pursuant to its
authority under Section 36 of the Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') and
Rule 0-12\6\ thereunder, from the Section 19(b) rule filing
requirements to separately file a proposed rule change to amend ISE
General 7.
    \7\ ISE will provide such notice via a posting on the same
website location where ISE posts its own rule filings pursuant to
Rule 19b-4 within the timeframe require by such Rule. The website
posting will include a link to the location on the Nasdaq website
where the applicable proposed rule change is posted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Implementation
    The Exchange proposes that this rule change become operative at
such time as it receives approval for an exemption from the Securities
and Exchange Commission, pursuant to its authority under Section 36 of
the Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') and Rule 0-12 \8\ thereunder, from
the Section 19(b) rule filing requirements to separately file a
proposed rule change to amend ISE General 7.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See 17 CFR 240.0-12; Exchange Act Release No. 39624
(February 5, 1998), 63 FR 8101 (February 18, 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\9\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\10\ in particular, in that it is designed to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments
to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national
market system, and, in general to protect investors and the public
interest, by consolidating its rules into a single rule set. The
Exchange intends to also file similar proposed rule changes for the
Nasdaq PHLX LLC; Nasdaq GEMX, LLC; Nasdaq ISE, LLC; and Nasdaq MRX, LLC
markets so that the General 7 Rules which govern Consolidated Audit
Trail Compliance are conformed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Incorporating by reference the Nasdaq General 7 Rules into the ISE
General 7 Rules will provide an easy reference for Members seeking to
comply with Consolidated Audit Trail on multiple markets. As noted, the
Exchange intends to file similar proposed rule changes for other
affiliated markets so that Nasdaq General 7 is the source document for
all Nasdaq Consolidated Audit Trail rules. The Exchange notes that the
current rule is not changing and ISE members will be required to
continue to comply with the General 7 Rules as though such rules are
fully set forth in ISE's Rulebook. The Exchange desires to conform its
rules and locate those rules within the same location in each Rulebook
to provide Members the ability to quickly locate rules.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes that this
rule change does not impose an undue burden on competition because ISE
is merely incorporating by reference the rules of Nasdaq's General 7
into its own Rulebook. The current General 7 is not being amended and
therefore no Member is impacted.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \11\ and
subparagraph (f)(6) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires the Exchange to give the Commission written notice of the
Exchange's intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a
brief description and text of the proposed rule change, at least
five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission. The
Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-ISE-2018-35 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2018-35. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2018-35 and should be submitted on
or before May 17, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-08728 Filed 4-25-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 16 (Wednesday, January 25, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 4756-4761]
[FR Doc No: 2023-01327]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

49 CFR Parts 107, 110, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, and
180

[Docket No. PHMSA-2021-0091 (HM-260B)]
RIN 2137-AF56

Hazardous Materials: Editorial Corrections and Clarifications;
Correction

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

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration is
correcting the final rule that appeared in the Federal Register on
December 27, 2022. The final rule made editorial revisions and
clarifications to the hazardous materials regulations including the
hazardous materials table. The corrections address several errors to
the hazardous material entries in the hazardous materials table.

DATES: This correction is effective January 26, 2023.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yul B. Baker Jr., Standards and
Rulemaking Division, at<PHONE_NUMBER>, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials
Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, East Building, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background and Need for Correction

    The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)
published final rule HM-260B \1\ to correct editorial errors and
improve the clarity of certain provisions in PHMSA's program and
procedural regulations and in the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR;
49 Code of Federal Regulations parts 171-180). The intended effect of
the rulemaking was to enhance accuracy and reduce misunderstandings of
the HMR. The changes in the final rule included numerous amendments to
the Sec.  172.101 Hazardous Materials Table (HMT). Unfortunately, the
amendments to the table entries for various hazardous materials
introduced new unintended errors that PHMSA is correcting in this
notice. The unintended errors are summarized below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 87 FR 79752 (Dec. 27, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    UN2258, 1,2-Propylenediamine: In HM-260B, PHMSA removed special
provision A6 from column (7) of the Sec.  172.101 HMT for several
hazardous materials including ``UN2258, 1,2-Propylenediamine.'' Special
provision A6 was removed because it had been inadvertently added back
to the Sec.  172.101 HMT when making unrelated changes to entries in
final rule HM-219C.\2\ UN2258, 1,2-Propylenediamine is a Class 8
corrosive liquid material that also has a secondary Class 3 flammable
hazard. Thus, in column (6) of the table, the codes ``8'' and ``3'' are
specified for the hazard labels required for a package containing this
material. However, in HM-260B, we inadvertently omitted reference to
the ``3'' from column (6). The absence of the ``3'' will create
uncertainty for shippers and carriers of ``UN2258, 1,2-
Propylenediamine'' as to whether a Class 3 label is required on a
package containing this material. To meet the original intent of HM-
260B to enhance accuracy and reduce misunderstandings of the HMR, PHMSA
is correcting this error in this notice. See Section III. Corrections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 85 FR 75680 (Nov. 25, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Vessel stowage codes: In HM-260B, PHMSA also made several revisions
to correct inadvertent omissions of vessel stowage codes from column
(10B) to the Sec.  172.101 HMT for the entries ``UN1783,
Hexamethylenediamine solution, 8, III,'' ``UN1788, Hydrobromic acid,
with not more than 49 percent hydrobromic acid,'' and ``UN1740,
Hydrogendifluoride, solid, n.o.s., 8, III.'' Column (10B) assigns
specific codes for the stowage and handling requirements for specific
hazardous materials transported by vessel. In HM-219C, PHMSA had
inadvertently omitted stowage code ``52'' for the Packing Group (PG)
III entry for ``Hexamethylenediamine solution'' and stowage codes
``53'' and ``58'' for the PG III entry for ``Hydrogendifluoride, solid,
n.o.s,'' when making unrelated changes to these entries to specify
reference citations for authorized packaging exceptions.
    Stowage code ``52'' means stow ``separated from'' acids. Stowage
codes ``53'' and ``58'' mean stow ``separated from'' alkaline compounds
and stow ``separated from'' cyanides, respectively. These stowage codes
are important to ensure proper segregation between acids and both
amines and cyanides. Amines react dangerously with acids and evolving
heat, and the heat of reaction has the potential to generate corrosive
vapors. Cyanides react with acids to generate toxic vapors. PHMSA
attempted to add the respective stowage codes back to column (10B)
under HM-260B but instead added the stowage codes to column (7), which
assigns special provisions applicable to certain Sec.  172.101 HMT
entries. More specifically, stowage code ``52'' was added to both
column (7) and column (10B) for ``Hexamethylenediamine solution, II''
and stowage codes ``53'' and ``58'' were added to column (7) and not
column (10B) for ``Hydrogendifluoride, solid, n.o.s., III.''
    Readers may misinterpret unrelated special provisions as being
applicable and that the stowage codes that were inadvertently omitted
would not apply. For example, special provision ``53'' requires
packages to display a subsidiary risk label ``EXPLOSIVE'' along with
the subsidiary hazard indicated in the shipping description. If ``53''
were to remain in column (7) for the PG III entry of
``Hexamethylenediamine solution''--which is a corrosive material that
does not have an explosive hazard--persons would be mischaracterizing
the hazard for the material.
    Additionally, in final rule HM-215O,\3\ PHMSA inadvertently omitted
stowage codes ``53'' and ``58'' for the entry ``UN1788, Hydrobromic
acid, with not more than 49 percent hydrobromic acid.'' PHMSA had made
numerous changes to the stowage codes assigned to hazardous materials
in the Sec.  172.101 HMT for consistency with the International
Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG) Code for regulation of hazardous
material transported by vessel including for the companion entry
``UN1788, Hydrobromic acid, with more than 49 percent hydrobromic
acid.'' The IMDG Code Dangerous Goods List has just one table entry for
``UN1788, Hydrobromic acid,'' but

PHMSA splits it into two hazardous materials descriptions because of
varying safety measures dependent on the mode of transport. For
instance, ``UN1788, Hydrobromic acid, with more than 49 percent
hydrobromic acid,'' is forbidden for transport by air. PHMSA attempted
to add the respective stowage codes to column (10B) of the Sec.
172.101 HMT to the ``not more than'' entry of UN1788 but inadvertently
omitted the ``not'' from the hazardous materials description
effectively making the changes apply to the ``more than'' entry of
UN1788. PHMSA also inadvertently omitted stowage code ``8'' in the
process. If these errors remain uncorrected, readers may misinterpret
the provisions that apply to the ``more than'' entry as now applying to
the ``not more than'' entry and that the missing stowage codes would
not apply when transporting this material. To meet the intent of HM-
260B to enhance accuracy and reduce misunderstandings of the HMR, PHMSA
is correcting these errors in this notice. See Section III.
Corrections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 85 FR 27810 (May 11, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

A. Statutory/Legal Authority

    Statutory authority for this correction notice is provided by the
Federal Hazardous Materials Transportation Law (49 U.S.C. 5101 et
seq.). The Secretary delegated the authority granted in this law to the
PHMSA Administrator at 49 CFR 1.97(b).
    PHMSA finds it has good cause to make the corrections without
notice and comment pursuant to Section 553(b) of the Administrative
Procedure Act (APA, 5 U.S.C. 551, et seq.). Section 553(b)(B) of the
APA provides that, when an agency for good cause finds that notice and
public procedure are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the
public interest, the agency may issue a rule without providing notice
and an opportunity for public comment. As explained above, the changes
to the text of the final rule document provided in this notice consist
of corrections to preamble discussion of Sec.  172.101 HMT and
corrections to the regulatory text in the amendatory instruction for
changes to Sec.  172.101 HMT. The publication of this correction notice
is needed to ensure the accuracy and reduce misunderstanding of
unintended changes or omissions to Sec.  172.101 HMT.
    The January 26, 2023, effective date of the revisions contained in
this notice is authorized under both Section 553(d)(1) and (3) of the
APA. Section 553(d)(1) provides that a rule should take effect ``not
less than 30 days'' after publication in the Federal Register except
for ``a substantive rule which grants or recognizes an exemption or
relieves a restriction,'' while Section 553(d)(3) allows for earlier
effectiveness for good cause found by the agency and published within
the rule. 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), (3). ``The purpose of the thirty-day
waiting period is to give affected parties a reasonable time to adjust
their behavior before the final rule takes effect.'' Omnipoint Corp. v.
F.C.C., 78 F.3d 620, 630 (D.C. Cir. 1996). Since this final rule has
not yet taken effect, the impact on affected parties is minimal and
such parties will not be adversely impacted by the shortened period
before the correction becomes effective. The corrections in this notice
accurately represent the intended changes to the Sec.  172.101 HMT in
the final rule and, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), are
effective January 26, 2023. Moreover, PHMSA finds that good cause under
Section 553(d)(3) supports making the revisions effective January 26,
2023, because the corrections contained in this notice are entirely
consistent with the final rule--which itself was published on December
27, 2022--and helps promote accuracy and understanding of the Sec.
172.101 HMT requirements prior to the January 26, 2023, effective date.

B. Executive Order 12866 and DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures

    This notice has been evaluated in accordance with existing policies
and procedures and is considered not significant under Executive Order
12866 (``Regulatory Planning and Review'') and DOT Order 2100.6A
(``Rulemaking and Guidance Procedures''); therefore, this notice has
not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under
Executive Order 12866. PHMSA finds that the corrections in the notice
(in all respects consistent with the final rule) neither impose
incremental compliance costs nor adversely affect safety.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act and Executive Order 13272

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.) requires
agencies to review regulations to assess their impact on small entities
unless the agency head certifies that a rulemaking will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
including small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations under 50,000. The
Regulatory Flexibility Act directs agencies to establish exceptions and
differing compliance standards for small businesses when possible to do
so and still meet the objectives of applicable regulatory statutes.
Executive Order 13272 (``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in
Agency Rulemaking'') \4\ requires agencies to establish procedures and
policies to promote compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act and
to ``thoroughly review draft rules to assess and take appropriate
account of the potential impact'' of the rules on small businesses,
governmental jurisdictions, and small organizations. DOT posts its
implementing guidance on a dedicated web page.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 67 FR 53461 (Aug. 16, 2002).
    \5\ DOT, ``Rulemaking Requirements Related to Small Entities,''
https://www.transportation.gov/regulations/rulemaking-requirements-concerning-small-entities (last accessed June 17, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final rule was developed in accordance with Executive Order
13272 and with DOT's procedures and policies to promote compliance with
the Regulatory Flexibility Act and ensure that potential impacts of
draft rules on small entities are properly considered. There are no
costs to small entities associated with the final rule. The final rule
made non-substantive changes that do not impose new requirements, so
there are no direct or indirect adverse economic impacts for small
units of government, businesses, or other organizations. This notice
similarly does not impose new requirements but makes corrections to
errors in the final rule document in the amendments to the Sec.
172.101 HMT that if left uncorrected would be inaccurate and cause
misunderstanding by stakeholders as to what requirements apply.
Consequently, PHMSA certifies that neither the final rule nor this
notice has a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.

D. Paperwork Reduction Act

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501, et
seq.), no person is required to respond to any information collection
unless it has been approved by OMB and displays a valid OMB control
number. Section 1320.8(d) of 5 CFR requires that PHMSA provide
interested members of the public and affected agencies an opportunity
to comment on information and recordkeeping requests. The corrections
in this notice impose no new or revised information collection.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA; 2 U.S.C. 1501, et
seq.) requires agencies to assess the effects of

federal regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal governments, and
the private sector. For any final rule that includes a federal mandate
that may result in the expenditure by state, local, and tribal
governments, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in 1996
dollars in any given year, the agency must prepare, amongst other
things, a written statement that qualitatively and quantitatively
assesses the costs and benefits of the federal mandate. The final rule
did not impose unfunded mandates under the UMRA and this notice to
correct errors in the final rule document also does not impose unfunded
mandates. It does not result in costs of $100 million or more in 1996
dollars to either state, local, or tribal governments, or to the
private sector in any one year and is the least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objective of the rule.

F. National Environmental Policy Act

    The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), and implementing regulations by the Council
on Environmental Quality (40 CFR part 1500) requires federal agencies
to consider the consequences of federal actions and prepare a detailed
statement on actions that significantly affect the quality of the human
environment. DOT Order 5610.1C, ``Procedures for Considering
Environmental Impacts,'' establishes departmental procedures for
evaluating environmental impacts under NEPA and its implementing
regulations. The purpose of the final rule was to introduce non-
substantive changes that do not impose new requirements in order to
improve accuracy and understanding of the HMR. The corrections to the
final rule in this notice similarly do not impose new requirements.
Therefore, PHMSA has determined that implementing this final rule will
not significantly impact the quality of the human environment.

G. Executive Order 13132

    The final rule was analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 13132 (``Federalism'') \6\ and
its implementing Presidential Memorandum (``Preemption'').\7\ Executive
Order 13132 requires agencies to assure meaningful and timely input by
state and local officials in the development of regulatory policies
that may have ``substantial direct effects 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.'' The corrections in this notice are consistent with, and
facilitate compliance with, the final rule, and do not have any
substantial direct effects on the states, the relationship between the
national government and the states, or the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government beyond what was
accounted for in the final rule. It does not contain any provision that
imposes any substantial direct compliance costs on state and local
governments, nor any new provision that preempts state law. Therefore,
the consultation and funding requirements of Executive Order 13132 do
not apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999).
    \7\ 74 FR 24693 (May 22, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

H. Environmental Justice

    Executive Orders 12898 (``Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations''),\8\ 13985
(``Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities
Through the Federal Government''),\9\ 13990 (``Protecting Public Health
and the Environment and Restoring Science To Tackle the Climate
Crisis''),\10\ 14008 (``Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and
Abroad'') \11\ and DOT Order 5610.2C (``Department of Transportation
Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and
Low-Income Populations'') require DOT agencies to achieve environmental
justice as part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as
appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects, including interrelated social and economic
effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority
populations, low-income populations, and other underserved and
disadvantaged communities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 59 FR 7629 (Feb. 11, 1994).
    \9\ 86 FR 7009 (Jan. 20, 2021).
    \10\ 86 FR 7037 (Jan. 20, 2021).
    \11\ 86 FR 7619 (Feb. 1, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    PHMSA evaluated the final rule under the above Executive Orders and
DOT Order 5610.2C and did not expect the final rule to cause
disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental
effects on minority, low-income, underserved, and other disadvantaged
populations and communities. The final rule was facially neutral and
national in scope; it was neither directed toward a particular
population, region, or community, nor was it expected to adversely
impact any particular population, region, or community. Since PHMSA did
not expect the final rule to adversely affect the safe transportation
of hazardous materials generally, PHMSA does not expect the corrections
to the final rule in this notice to involve disproportionately high
adverse risks for minority populations, low-income populations, or
other underserved and other disadvantaged communities.

I. Executive Order 13175

    The final rule was analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 13175 (``Consultation and
Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'') \12\ and DOT Order
5301.1 (``Department of Transportation Policies, Programs, and
Procedures Affecting American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Tribes'').
Because none of the corrections have Tribal implications or impose
substantial direct compliance costs on Indian Tribal governments, the
funding and consultation requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not
apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 65 FR 67249 (Nov. 6, 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Executive Order 13175 and DOT Order 5301.1 require DOT Operating
Administrations to assure meaningful and timely input from Indian
Tribal government representatives in the development of rules that
significantly or uniquely affect tribal communities by imposing
``substantial direct compliance costs'' or ``substantial direct
effects'' on such communities or the relationship and distribution of
power between the Federal Government and Native American Tribes. PHMSA
assessed the impact of this final rule and determined that it did not
significantly or uniquely affect tribal communities or Native American
Tribal governments. The changes to the HMR as written in the final rule
are facially neutral and have broad, national scope. PHMSA therefore,
expected the final rule not to affect tribal communities significantly
or uniquely, much less impose substantial compliance costs on Native
American Tribal governments or mandate tribal action. Because PHMSA
expects the final rule will not adversely affect the safe
transportation of hazardous materials generally, PHMSA does not expect
it will entail disproportionately high adverse risks for tribal
communities. For these reasons, PHMSA concluded the funding and
consultation requirements of Executive Order 13175 and DOT Order 5301.1
do not apply. Similarly, PHMSA does not expect the corrections to the
final rule in this notice to affect tribal communities significantly or
uniquely, much less impose substantial

compliance costs on Native American Tribal governments or mandate
tribal action.

J. Executive Order 13609 and International Trade Analysis

    Under Executive Order 13609 (``Promoting International Regulatory
Cooperation''),\13\ agencies must consider whether the impacts
associated with significant variations between domestic and
international regulatory approaches are unnecessary or may impair the
ability of American business to export and compete internationally. In
meeting shared challenges involving health, safety, labor, security,
environmental, and other issues, international regulatory cooperation
can identify approaches that are at least as protective as those that
are or would be adopted in the absence of such cooperation.
International regulatory cooperation can also reduce, eliminate, or
prevent unnecessary differences in regulatory requirements. The
corrections to the final rule in this notice do not impact
international trade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 77 FR 26413 (May 4, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

K. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs federal agencies to use voluntary consensus
standards in their regulatory activities unless doing so would be
inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary
consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., specification of
materials, test methods, or performance requirements) that are
developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standard bodies. The
corrections to the final rule do not invoke any voluntary consensus
standards, so the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of
1995 is not applicable in this case.

Corrections

    PHMSA makes corrections to both the preamble and regulatory text of
the final rule document. PHMSA is correcting the preamble discussion of
changes to column (7) of the Sec.  172.101 HMT by removing discussion
of changes to the entries ``UN1783, Hexamethylenediamine solution, 8,
III,'' and ``UN1740, Hydrogendifluoride, solid, n.o.s., 8, III,'' which
misconstrue the intended vessel storage codes changes as special
provision changes and correctly adds to the discussion of column (10B)
changes as discussion of vessel stowage code changes for these
materials. Additionally, PHMSA is correctly revising the Sec.  172.101
HMT entries for the hazardous materials discussed above in Section I.
    In FR Doc. 2022-26960, appearing on page 79752 in the Federal
Register of Tuesday, December 27, 2022, the following corrections are
made:

Corrections to Preamble

    1. On page 79755, in the 3rd column, beginning at the bullet
paragraphs starting with ``For ``UN1740'''' and ``For ``UN1783'''', the
following are correctly removed:
     For ``UN1740, Hydrogendifluoride, solid, n.o.s., 8, PG
III,'' PHMSA is correcting an error where special provisions 53 and 58
are missing from column 7.
     For ``UN1783, Hexamethylenediamine solution, 8, PG III,
PHMSA is correcting an error where special provision 52 is missing from
column 7.
    2. On page 79756, in the 2nd column at the end of the first
paragraph and before the heading ``Section 172.102,'' the following is
correctly added:
     In column (10B) for ``UN1740, Hydrogendifluoride, solid,
n.o.s., 8, PG III,'' stowage codes ``53'' and ``58'' are missing. PHMSA
inadvertently omitted these stowage codes when making changes to this
entry in HM-219C to allow packaging exceptions. Stowage code ``53''
provision means stow ``separated from'' alkaline compounds and stowage
code ``58'' provision means stow ``separated from'' cyanides. PHMSA is
amending the HMT to add the stowage codes back to column (10B). This
amendment will ensure that this material is properly stowed for safe
vessel transport.
     In column (10B) for ``UN1783, Hexamethylenediamine
solution, 8, PG III,'' stowage code ``52'' is missing. PHMSA
inadvertently omitted this stowage code when making changes to this
entry in HM-219C to allow packaging exceptions. Stowage code ``52''
provision means stow ``separated from'' acids. PHMSA is amending the
HMT to add the stowage code back to column (10B). This amendment will
ensure that this material is properly stowed for safe transport.

Correction to Regulations

Sec.  172.101  [Corrected]

0
3. In the amendments to Sec.  172.101, in the table, make the following
corrections:
0
a. On page 79769, correctly revise the entry for ``Hexamethylenediamine
solution'';
0
b. On page 79769, remove the entry for ``Hydrobromic acid, with more
than 49 percent hydrobromic acid'' and correctly add in its place an
entry for ``Hydrobromic acid, with not more than 49 percent hydrobromic
acid'';
0
c. On page 79769, correctly revise the entry for ``Hydrogendifluoride,
solid, n.o.s.''; and
0
d. On page 79770, correctly revise the entry for ``1,2
Propelenyamine''.
    The corrections read as follows:

                                                                                Sec.   172.101 Hazardous Materials Table
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                (8)                                          (9)                                   (10)
                                                                                -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Hazardous materials   Hazard                                                              Packaging (Sec.   173.***)        Quantity limitations (see Sec.  Sec.   173.27 and       Vessel stowage
             Symbols                descriptions and   class or  Identification    PG      Label    Special provisions ------------------------------------                        175.75)                       -----------------------
                                    proper shipping    division      numbers               codes     (Sec.   172.102)                                      ------------------------------------------------------
                                         names                                                                             Exceptions         Non-bulk                            Passenger      Cargo aircraft    Location     Other
                                                                                Bulk          aircraft/rail         only
(1)                               (2)................       (3)             (4)    (5)  (6).......  (7)...............  (8A)............  (8B)............  (8C)............  (9A)............  (9B)............      (10A)        (10B)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                                * * * * * * *
                                  Hexamethylenediamin         8          UN1783     II  8.........  IB2, T7, TP2......  154.............  202.............  242.............  1 L.............  30 L............          A           52
                                   e solution.
                                                                                III  8.........  IB3, T4, TP1......  154.............  203.............  241.............  5 L.............  60 L............          A           52

                                                                                * * * * * * *
                                  Hydrobromic acid,           8          UN1788     II  8.........  A3, B2, B15, IB2,   154.............  202.............  242.............  1 L.............  30 L............          C       53, 58
                                   with not more than                                                N41, T7, TP2.
                                   49 percent
                                   hydrobromic acid.
                                                                                III  8.........  A3, IB3, T4, TP1..  154.............  203.............  241.............  5 L.............  60 L............          C    8, 53, 58

                                                                                * * * * * * *
                                  Hydrogendifluoride,         8          UN1740     II  8.........  IB8, IP2, IP4, N3,  154.............  212.............  240.............  15 kg...........  50 kg...........          A  25, 40, 52,
                                   solid, n.o.s..                                                    N34, T3, TP33.                                                                                53, 58
                                                                                III  8.........  IB8, IP3, N3, N34,  154.............  213.............  240.............  25 kg...........  100 kg..........          A  25, 40, 52,
                                                                                T1, TP33.                                                                                53, 58

                                                                                * * * * * * *
                                  1,2-                        8          UN2258     II  8, 3......  A3, IB2, N34, T7,   154.............  202.............  243.............  1 L.............  30 L............          A       40, 52
                                   Propylenediamine.                                                 TP2.

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

* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 19, 2023, under the
authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.97.
Tristan H. Brown,
Deputy Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration.
[FR Doc. 2023-01327 Filed 1-24-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 77 (Friday, April 21, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24522-24526]
[FR Doc No: 2023-08498]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2022-0309; FRL-10903-01-R6]

Air Plan Disapproval; Texas; Contingency Measures for the Dallas-
Fort Worth and Houston-Galveston-Brazoria Ozone Nonattainment Areas

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act), the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to disapprove
revisions to the Texas State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the Dallas-
Fort Worth (DFW) and Houston-Galveston-Brazoria (HGB) serious ozone
nonattainment areas for the 2008 ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS). Specifically, EPA is proposing to disapprove the
portion of these SIP revisions that the state intended to address
contingency measure requirements. Contingency measures are control
requirements in a nonattainment area SIP that would take effect should
the area fail to meet Reasonable Further Progress (RFP) emissions
reductions requirements or fail to attain the NAAQS by the applicable
attainment date.

DATES: Written comments on this proposal must be received on or before
May 22, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2022-0309, at https://www.regulations.gov or via email to
[email protected]. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio,
video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written
comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please contact Jeff Riley,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected]. For the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance
on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at www.regulations.gov. While all documents in the
docket are listed in the index, some information may not be publicly
available due to docket file size restrictions or content (e.g., CBI).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Riley, EPA Region 6 Office,
Infrastructure & Ozone Section,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected].
Out of an abundance of caution for members of the public and our staff,
the EPA Region 6 office may be closed to the public to reduce the risk
of transmitting COVID-19. The EPA Region 6 office encourages the public
to submit comments via https://www.regulations.gov. Please call or
email the contact listed above if you need alternative access to
material indexed but not provided in the docket.

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

I. Background

    On May 13, 2020, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality
(TCEQ or State) submitted to EPA SIP

revisions addressing requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS for
the two Serious ozone nonattainment areas in Texas--the DFW and HGB
areas. As Serious ozone nonattainment areas, the DFW Area (Collin,
Dallas, Denton, Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker, Rockwall, Tarrant, and
Wise counties) and the HGB Area (Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend,
Galveston, Harris, Liberty, Montgomery, and Waller counties) were both
subject to the CAA section 182 Serious ozone nonattainment area
requirements, one of which was that the state must adopt and submit
contingency measures for implementation should the area fail to meet
RFP emissions reductions or fail to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the
applicable attainment date.\1\ The May 13, 2020, SIP revision
submissions also included such provisions intended to satisfy the
contingency measures requirement for both the DFW and HGB areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Note EPA's recent final determination that the HGB and DFW
Serious nonattainment areas failed to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS by
the areas' attainment date. 87 FR 60926 (October 7, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 29, 2020 (85 FR 60928), we published a proposed rule
to approve those portions of the May 13, 2020, Texas SIP revision
addressing the HGB RFP requirements and the contingency measures
requirement. On October 9, 2020 (85 FR 64084), we published a proposed
rule to approve those portions of the May 13, 2020, Texas SIP revision
addressing the DFW RFP requirements and the contingency measures
requirement. In this proposal, we refer to the RFP element of the May
13, 2020, Texas SIP revisions as ``the RFP demonstration,'' and to the
contingency measures element of the May 13, 2020, Texas SIP revisions
as ``the contingency measures.'' We also refer to our September 29,
2020, proposed action and Technical Support Document (TSD) as ``the HGB
proposal,'' and to the October 9, 2020, proposed action and TSD as
``the DFW proposal.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The May 13, 2020, SIP submissions, our September 2020
proposal, and our October 2020 proposal are provided in the docket
for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In our DFW and HGB proposals, we provided information on ozone
formation, the ozone standards, area designations, related ozone
nonattainment plan requirements under the CAA, and the EPA's
implementing regulations for the 2008 ozone standards, referred to as
the 2008 Ozone SIP Requirements Rule (``2008 Ozone SRR'').\3\ EPA
received no comments on the HGB proposal by the October 29, 2020 close
of the public comment period. EPA did receive adverse comments on the
DFW proposal by the November 9, 2020 close of the public comment
period.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See 80 FR 12264 (March 6, 2015).
    \4\ Comments received on this action from Air Law for All on
behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity and the Sierra Club
are provided in the docket at https://www.regulations.gov under
docket ID: EPA-R06-OAR-2020-0161.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Among other issues, the commenters on the DFW proposal asserted
that our proposed approval of the DFW area contingency measures would
be inconsistent with a September 12, 2016 decision issued by the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (``Ninth Circuit'') in a case
referred to as Bahr v. EPA. In Bahr, the Ninth Circuit concluded that
contingency measures must be measures that would only take effect at
the time the area fails to meet RFP or to attain by the applicable
attainment date, not before.\5\ After the Bahr decision, EPA recognized
that within the geographic jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit (which
does not include Texas), the language of CAA sections 172(c)(9) and
182(c)(9) require contingency measures to be both prospective (i.e.,
that they be undertaken in the future), and conditional (i.e., that
implementation is conditional upon the area's failure to meet RFP or to
attain by the applicable attainment date).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Bahr v. EPA, 836 F.3d 1218, at 1235-1237 (9th Cir. 2016).
    \6\ The Bahr v. EPA decision involved a challenge to an EPA
approval of contingency measures under the general nonattainment
area plan provisions for contingency measures in CAA section
172(c)(9), but, given the similarity between the statutory language
in section 172(c)(9) and the additional ozone-specific contingency
measure provision in section 182(c)(9), EPA found that the decision
affected how it should interpret both sections of the Act in the
Ninth Circuit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 29, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit (``D.C. Circuit'') issued a decision in response to
challenges to EPA's rule implementing the 2015 ozone NAAQS, (83 FR
62998 (December 6, 2018)). Sierra Club, et al. v. EPA, 985 F.3d 1055
(D.C. Cir. 2021). Among the rulings in this decision, the D.C. Circuit
endorsed the holding of Bahr and vacated EPA's interpretation of the
CAA that allowed states to rely on already-implemented control measures
to meet the statutory requirements of section 172(c)(9) or 182(c)(9)
for contingency measures in nonattainment plans for the ozone NAAQS
(see 83 FR 62998, 63026-27). The effect of this decision is that the
CAA interpretation that contingency measures must be prospective and
conditional applies across the U.S.\7\ EPA notes that the court issued
the Sierra Club decision after the close of the comment period on both
of the prior HGB and DFW proposals concerning contingency measures
required by sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Contingency measures that are to take effect upon failure to
satisfy standards are likewise not measures that have been
implemented before such failure occurs. Sierra Club, et al. v. EPA,
985 F.3d 1055, 1067-68 (D.C. Cir. 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 10, 2021 (86 FR 24717), EPA finalized its approval of the
HGB area RFP demonstration and associated motor vehicle emissions
budgets (MVEBs), and a revised 2011 base year emissions inventory. In
that final rulemaking, we did not take final action on our October 29,
2020 proposed approval of the contingency measures submitted as part of
the State's May 13, 2020, SIP revision submission for the HGB area. EPA
explained that it was reexamining the contingency measures element of
the TCEQ submission for the HGB area in light of the D.C. Circuit
decision, and that it would address those contingency measures in a
separate future action. Similarly, we are proposing to take action here
on the DFW contingency measures and we will address the DFW RFP
demonstration in a separate action.

II. The EPA's Evaluation

1. Statutory and Regulatory Requirements

    Under the CAA, states with ozone nonattainment areas classified
under subpart 2 as Moderate or above must adopt and submit
nonattainment plans that include contingency measures consistent with
section 172(c)(9). Similarly, states with ozone nonattainment areas
classified as Serious or above must include contingency measures
consistent with section 182(c)(9). Contingency measures are additional
controls or measures to be implemented in the event the area fails to
meet RFP or to attain the NAAQS by the applicable attainment date. The
SIP submission should identify such controls or measures, specify a
schedule for implementation, and indicate that the measures will be
implemented without significant further action by the state or the
EPA.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See 70 FR 71612 (November 29, 2005). See also 80 FR 12264,
12285 (March 6, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As of the dates of our September 2020 and October 2020 proposals to
approve the HGB and DFW contingency measures submitted as part of the
State's May 13, 2020, SIP revision submissions, it had been the EPA's
long-standing interpretation of section 172(c)(9) that states could
rely on emission reductions from already-implemented measures to meet
the contingency measures requirements. Thus, states could rely on

emissions reductions from existing federal measures (e.g., federal
mobile source measures based on the incremental turnover of the motor
vehicle fleet each year) or emission reductions from already-
implemented state or local measures in the SIP, or the excess emissions
reductions from already-implemented measures that provide emissions
reductions in excess of those needed to meet any other nonattainment
plan requirements, such as meeting Reasonably Available Control Measure
(RACM)/Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT), RFP, or modeled
attainment demonstration requirements.
    The EPA has previously approved nonattainment area plan submissions
under the now invalidated interpretation that already-implemented
measures were permissible as contingency measures, i.e., contingency
measures that consisted of one or more federal or state control
measures that are already in place and provide reductions that are in
excess of the reductions needed to meet other requirements or relied
upon in the modeled attainment demonstration.\9\ However, after Bahr,
and especially after Sierra Club, EPA can no longer interpret the CAA
to allow approval of already-implemented measures as meeting the
contingency measures requirements of CAA sections 172(c)(9) or
182(c)(9). Contingency measures must be prospective and conditional,
i.e., measures that would take effect in the event the area fails to
make RFP or attain by the applicable attainment date, not before.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See, e.g., 62 FR 15844 (April 3, 1997) (direct final rule
approving an Indiana ozone SIP revision); 62 FR 66279 (December 18,
1997) (final rule approving an Illinois ozone SIP revision); 66 FR
30811 (June 8, 2001) (direct final rule approving a Rhode Island
ozone SIP revision); 66 FR 586 (January 3, 2001) (final rule
approving District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia ozone SIP
revisions); and 66 FR 634 (January 3, 2001) (final rule approving a
Connecticut ozone SIP revision).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Summary of the State's Submission

    For both the DFW and HGB 2008 ozone NAAQS Serious nonattainment
areas, the contingency measures the state submitted as part of the May
13, 2020, SIP revision submissions consist of surplus emissions
reductions from already-implemented control measures. The state relied
on the excess emissions from such already-implemented measures to
demonstrate compliance with the contingency measure requirements of CAA
sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9).\10\ The State determined the
emissions reductions from these measures to be surplus, in that the
state did not rely upon them in the nonattainment plan for
demonstrating RFP or attainment. The May 13, 2020, SIP submissions
explained that these surplus emission reductions will continue to take
place during calendar year 2021, and thus the state identified them as
contingency measures for the DFW and HGB areas. These measures consist
of projected emission reductions from federal vehicle and engine
emissions certification programs and from fuel control programs for
both on-road and non-road vehicles (see Table 1) which were already
adopted by EPA and the implementation of which does not depend on
whether a nonattainment area attains or meets its reasonable further
progress requirements. The State claimed that the projected combined
VOC and NOX emissions reductions of 3 percent for the DFW
area and NOX emissions reductions of 3 percent for the HGB
area to be achieved between January 1, 2021 through December 31, 2021
(from the 2011 baseline) satisfies the CAA requirements for contingency
measures.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ May 13, 2020 RFP plan submission, Chapter 3, Tables 3-4 and
3-5.
    \11\ May 13, 2020 RFP demonstration submission, Chapter 4,
Tables 4-17 and 4-18.
    \12\ I/M is not implemented in Wise County. See 82 FR 27122
(June 14, 2017).
    \13\ The Dallas-Fort Worth nonattainment area voluntarily opted
into the RFG program. The 10-county DFW area includes counties with
federal RFG and counties with Texas Regional Low RVP. The four
counties with RFG are: Collin, Dallas, Denton, and Tarrant. The six
counties with Texas Regional Low RVP are: Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman,
Parker, Rockwall and Wise.

    Table 1--DFW & HGB Area Control Measures Identified for Contingency Emission Reductions, January 1, 2021-
                                                December 31, 2021
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Control strategy description           Year control program started              Additional information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DFW Area I/M Program \12\..........  1990....................................  1990--Dallas, Tarrant Counties
                                                                                only.
                                                                               2002--I/M & Anti-Tampering
                                                                                Program (ATP) expanded to
                                                                                Collin, Denton Counties.
                                                                               2003--I/M & ATP expanded to
                                                                                Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker,
                                                                                Rockwall Counties.
Tier I, Federal Motor Vehicle        1994....................................  Phased-in 1994-1997.
 Control Program (FMVCP).
HGB Area On-road & Non-road          1995 (Phase I), 2000 (Phase II).........  Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend,
 Reformulated Gasoline (RFG).                                                   Galveston, Harris, Liberty,
                                                                                Montgomery, Waller Counties.
DFW Area On-road & Non-road RFG....  1995 (Phase I), 2000 (Phase II).........  Collin, Dallas, Denton, Tarrant
                                                                                Counties.
East Texas Regional use of gasoline  2000....................................  Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman, Parker,
 with low Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP)                                             Rockwall, & Wise Counties.
 \13\.
HGB Area Inspection and Maintenance  1997....................................  Brazoria, Fort Bend, Galveston,
 (I/M) Program.                                                                 Harris, Montgomery Counties.
National Low Emission Vehicle        2001....................................
 Program.
Tier II, FMVCP.....................  2004....................................  Phased-in from 2004-2009.
On-road & Non-road Texas Low         2006....................................
 Emission Diesel (TxLED).
Ultra-Low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD).....  2006....................................  Phased-in for on-road diesel fuel
                                                                                2006-2010, non-road diesel fuel
                                                                                2007-2014.
2007 Heavy-Duty FMVCP..............  2007....................................  Phased-in from 2007-2010.
Tier III, FMVCP (including Low       2017....................................  Phased-in from 2017-2025.
 Sulfur Gasoline).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. The EPA's Review of the State's Submission

    As previously stated, pursuant to the D.C. Circuit decision, we
must evaluate whether the May 13, 2020, contingency measures identified
for the DFW and HGB areas are both prospective and conditional, i.e.,
measures that would take effect only upon the area's failure to make
RFP or attain by the applicable attainment date, not before.
    Because the contingency measures that the state identified in the
May 13, 2020, SIP submissions consist entirely of emission reductions
from measures that will occur regardless of whether the nonattainment
area fails to meet RFP or to attain by the applicable attainment date,
these measures do not satisfy the requirements of CAA sections
172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) that contingency measures

be both prospective and conditional. Thus, we must propose to
disapprove the contingency measure element of the May 13, 2020, SIP
submissions with respect to the contingency measures requirement for
the HBG and DWF areas for purposes of the 2008 ozone NAAQS. EPA notes
that this proposed action concerning contingency measures will have no
impact upon EPA's prior determinations with respect to RFP or other
nonattainment plan requirements for these areas and this NAAQS.

III. Proposed Action

    In light of the decision in Sierra Club, et al. v. EPA, we are
proposing to disapprove the contingency measure element of the May 13,
2020, Texas SIP revisions for Serious nonattainment areas under the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA proposes this disapproval with respect to
the contingency measure requirements under CAA section 172(c)(9) and
182(c)(9) for the reasons discussed above.
    Under section 179(a) of the CAA, final disapproval of a submittal
that addresses a requirement of part D, title I of the CAA starts
sanctions clocks. The May 13, 2020, SIP revision submissions, including
the contingency measures element for the DFW and HGB 2008 ozone NAAQS
serious nonattainment areas, do address requirements of part D, and
thus if the EPA finalizes this proposed disapproval, sanction clocks
would start on the effective date of the final action.\14\ The state
would be eligible for a protective finding for the DFW and HGB areas
under the transportation conformity rule because the EPA has separately
approved or will approve each area's RFP demonstration element of the
May 13, 2020, SIP submission, which reflects adopted control measures
and contains enforceable commitments that fully satisfy the emissions
reductions requirements for RFP for the 2008 ozone NAAQS for each
area.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Under 40 CFR 52.35, the offset sanction in CAA section
179(b)(2) would be imposed 18 months after the effective date of
that final disapproval action, and the highway funding sanction in
CAA section 179(b)(1) would be imposed six months after the offset
sanction. Sanction would not be imposed if the EPA determined that a
subsequent SIP submission corrected the identified deficiencies
before the applicable deadlines.
    \15\ 40 CFR 93.120(a)(3). Without a protective finding, the
final disapproval would result in a conformity freeze, under which
only projects in the first four years of the most recent conforming
Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Transportation Improvement
Programs (TIP) can proceed. Generally, during a freeze, no new RTPs,
TIPs, or RTP/TIP amendments can be found to conform until another
control strategy implementation plan revision fulfilling the same
CAA requirements is submitted, the EPA finds its motor vehicle
emissions budget(s) adequate pursuant to Sec.  93.118 or approves
the submission, and conformity to the implementation plan revision
is determined. Under a protective finding, the final disapproval of
the contingency measures element would not result in a
transportation conformity freeze in the DFW and HGB ozone
nonattainment areas and the metropolitan planning organizations may
continue to make transportation conformity determinations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, finalizing the proposed disapproval of the
contingency measure element would require that the EPA promulgate a
Federal implementation plan under section 110(c) unless we approve a
subsequent SIP submission or submissions from the state that correct
the deficiencies that are the basis for the disapproval within 24
months.
    The EPA is soliciting public comments on the proposed disapproval
discussed in this document. We will accept comments from the public on
this proposal for the next 30 days and will consider comments before
taking final action.

IV. Environmental Justice Considerations

    For this proposed action, the EPA conducted screening analyses of
the 10-county DFW and 8-county HGB Serious ozone nonattainment areas
using EPA's EJScreen (Version 2.1) environmental justice (EJ) screening
and mapping tool.\16\ The results of these analyses are being provided
for informational and transparency purposes, and the EJScreen analysis
reports are available in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See https://www.epa.gov/ejscreen.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This proposed action identifies deficiencies in the contingency
measure element of the May 13, 2020, Texas SIP revisions for the DFW
and HGB Serious nonattainment areas under the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
EPA's disapproval of these contingency measures, if finalized, would
require that Texas submit plans for the DFW and HGB areas containing
prospective and conditional contingency measures consistent with the
D.C. Circuit decision, which would help to improve air quality in the
entire affected nonattainment area through ongoing reductions of ozone
precursor emissions should those measures be triggered. Information on
ozone and its relationship to negative health impacts can be found at
https://www.epa.gov/ground-level-ozone-pollution.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See, also, 80 FR 65292 (October 26, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a result of EPA's full disapproval action, if finalized, TCEQ
will be required to undertake additional actions to ensure that the DFW
and HGB 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS nonattainment areas meet CAA
nonattainment area planning requirements. These corrective actions are
within the state's discretion and therefore are not currently known,
but would be expected to contribute to improved air quality in these
areas and there is no information in the record indicating that this
action is expected to have disproportionately high or adverse human
health or environmental effects on a particular group of people.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This proposed action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the PRA, because this proposed SIP disapproval, if finalized, will not
in-and-of itself create any new information collection burdens, but
will simply disapprove certain State requirements for inclusion in the
SIP.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities. This
proposed SIP disapproval, if finalized, will not in-and-of itself
create any new requirements but will simply disapprove certain State
requirements for inclusion in the SIP.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. This action proposes to disapprove certain pre-
existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new
requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or
tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects 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.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175, because the SIP revision that EPA is proposing
to disapprove would not apply on any Indian reservation land or in any
other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe
has jurisdiction and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this action.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children,
per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in section 2-202 of
the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order
13045 because this proposed SIP disapproval, if finalized, will not in-
and-of itself create any new regulations, but will simply disapprove
certain State requirements for inclusion in the SIP.

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs EPA to use voluntary consensus
standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be
inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. EPA believes
that this action is not subject to the requirements of section 12(d) of
the NTTAA because application of those requirements would be
inconsistent with the CAA.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects'' of their actions on minority populations and low-income
populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law.
EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as the ``fair treatment and
meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income with respect to the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies.'' EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean that
``no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of
environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the
negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and
commercial operations or programs and policies.''
    The TCEQ did not evaluate EJ considerations as part of its SIP
submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither
prohibit nor require such an evaluation. EPA performed an EJ analysis,
as is described above in the section titled, ``Environmental Justice
Considerations.'' The analysis was done for the purpose of providing
additional context and information about this rulemaking to the public,
not as a basis of the action. Due to the nature of the action being
taken here, this action is expected to have a positive impact on the
air quality of the affected area. In addition, there is no information
in the record upon which this decision is based inconsistent with the
stated goal of E.O. 12898 of achieving environmental justice for people
of color, low-income populations, and Indigenous peoples.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: April 17, 2023.
Earthea Nance,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2023-08498 Filed 4-20-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 87 (Monday, May 6, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26352-26354]
[FR Doc No: 2013-10612]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP13-96-000]

Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP; Supplemental Notice of Intent To
Prepare an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Southeast Market
Expansion Project and Request for Comments on Environmental Issues

    As previously noticed on November 19, 2012, and supplemented
herein, the staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will
discuss the environmental impact of the Southeast Market Expansion
Project (SEME Project or Project) involving the construction and
operation of facilities by Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP (Gulf South)
in Jasper, Forrest, Perry, Greene, George, and Jackson Counties,
Mississippi and Mobile County, Alabama. The Commission will use this EA
in its decision-making process to determine whether the Project is in
the public convenience and necessity. The Commission staff began its
review of the Project on September 17, 2012, during the pre-filing
process under Docket No. PF12-21-000. The initial scoping period closed
on December 19, 2012.
    This notice announces the opening of a supplemental scoping period
that the Commission will use to gather input from the public and newly
affected landowners due to Gulf South's proposed pipeline right-of-way
route modifications and change in location of the Moss Point Compressor
Station made after the initial scoping period. This notice is being
sent as a supplement to the Notice of Intent to Prepare an
Environmental Assessment for the Planned Southeast Market Expansion
Project, Request for Comments on Environmental Issues, and Notice of
Public Scoping Meetings (original NOI) issued November 19, 2012 to
ensure that all stakeholders on the Commission's current environmental
mailing list have been notified and provide the opportunity for newly
affected landowners to comment on the Project. Your input will help the
Commission staff determine what issues they need to evaluate in the EA.
Please note that this supplemental scoping period will close on May 28,
2013. Further details on how to submit written comments are in the
Public Participation section of this notice.
    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company
representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to
construct, operate, and maintain the planned facilities. The company
would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable agreement. However, if
the Commission approves the Project, that approval conveys with it the
right of eminent domain. Therefore, if easement negotiations fail to
produce an agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation
proceedings where compensation would be determined in accordance with
state law.
    A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled ``An Interstate Natural
Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?'' is available for
viewing on the FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov). This fact sheet addresses
a number of typically-asked questions, including the use of eminent
domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings.

Summary of the Proposed Project (as supplemented)

    As indicated in the original NOI, Gulf South plans to construct
70.1 miles of new 30-inch-diameter and 24-inch-diameter pipeline
(approximately 42.3 miles and 27.8 miles, respectively), which would
begin near the southern terminus of Petal Gas Storage, L.L.C.'s
transmission facilities in Forrest County, Mississippi and end at Gulf
South's existing Index 311 pipeline tie-in, approximately 4.5 miles
west of Semmes, Alabama. In addition, Gulf South would construct 3 new
compressor stations located in Forrest County, Jasper County, and
Jackson County, Mississippi. The SEME Project would provide about 450
million standard cubic feet of natural gas per day to the Florida and
Southeast markets via an interconnect with Florida Gas Transmission
Company and a new high pressure interconnect with Gulf South's existing
Index 311 pipeline. According to Gulf South, the Project is necessary
to provide new natural gas transportation capacity to meet an increased
level of gas supply in the region.
    The proposed modifications consist of the following:
     A 4.5-mile-long variation in Perry County, Mississippi
(MPs 18.7 to 23.2) that moved the pipeline alignment about 2,000 feet
to the southwest;
     A 1.7-mile-long variation in Green County, Mississippi
(MPs 27.9 to 29.6) that moved the pipeline alignment about 1,000 feet
to the northeast;
     A 5.6-mile-long variation in George County, Mississippi
(MPs 47.3 to 52.9) that moved the pipeline alignment more than 14,000
feet to the east;
     A 3.1-mile-long variation, also in George County (MPs 58.0
to 61.1), that moved the alignment about 2,000 feet to the south; and
     A change in location of the Moss Point Compressor Station
site from the east to the west side of Highway 63 in Jackson County,
Mississippi.
    The general locations of the proposed modifications are shown in
Appendix 1.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The appendices referenced in this notice will not appear in
the Federal Register. Copies of the appendices were sent to all
those receiving this notice in the mail and are available at
www.ferc.gov using the link called ``eLibrary'' or from the
Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, or call<PHONE_NUMBER>. For instructions on
connecting to eLibrary, refer to the last page of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Land Requirements for Construction

    Construction of the proposed facilities would disturb about 1,167
acres of land for the aboveground facilities, pipeline, and access
roads. Following construction, Gulf South would maintain about 455
acres for permanent operation of the Project's facilities; the
remaining acreage would be restored and revert to former uses. About 79
percent of the pipeline route would parallel existing pipeline,
utility, or road rights-of-way.

The EA Process

    The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires the
Commission to take into account the environmental impacts that could
result from an action whenever it considers the issuance of a
Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. NEPA also requires us
\2\ to discover and address concerns the public may have about
proposals. This process is referred to as scoping. The main goal of the
scoping process is to focus the analysis in the EA on the important
environmental issues. By this notice, the Commission requests public
comments on the scope of the issues to address in the EA. We will
consider all filed comments during the preparation of the EA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``We,'' ``us,'' and ``our'' refer to the environmental staff
of the Commission's Office of Energy Projects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the EA we will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of
the construction and operation of the planned Project under these
general headings:
     Geology and soils;
     Land use;
     Water resources, fisheries, and wetlands;
     Cultural resources;
     Vegetation and wildlife;
     Air quality and noise;
     Endangered and threatened species;
     Socioeconomics; and
     Public safety.
    We will also evaluate possible alternatives to the planned Project
or portions of the Project, and make recommendations on how to lessen
or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
    The EA will present our independent analysis of the issues. The EA
will be available in the public record through eLibrary. Depending on
the comments received during the scoping process, we may also publish
and distribute the EA to the public for an allotted comment period. We
will consider all comments on the EA before we make our recommendations
to the Commission. To ensure we have the opportunity to consider and
address your comments, please carefully follow the instructions in the
Public Participation section below.
    On December 20, 2012 Gulf South filed its draft resource reports
for the Project. The FERC reviewed these draft reports and provided
comments to Gulf South on February 15, 2013. Gulf South submitted its
formal application, including the final resource reports, on March 8,
2013. We are now in the process of reviewing Gulf South's filed
application and developing the EA in cooperation with the U.S.
Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers. A diagram illustrating the environmental review
process is found in Appendix 2.

Consultations Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, we are using this notice to initiate consultation
with applicable State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs), and to
solicit their views and those of other government agencies, interested
Indian tribes, and the public on the Project's potential effects on
historic properties.\3\ We will define the Project-specific Area of
Potential Effects (APE) in consultation with the SHPOs as the Project
develops. On natural gas facility projects, the APE at a minimum
encompasses all areas subject to ground disturbance (examples include
construction right-of-way, contractor/pipe storage yards, compressor
stations, and access roads). Our EA for this Project will document our
findings on the impacts on historic properties and summarize the status
of consultations under section 106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation regulations
are at Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 800. Those
regulations define historic properties as any prehistoric or
historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in
or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Public Participation

    You can make a difference by providing us with your specific
comments or concerns about the Project. Your comments should focus on
the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and
measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. The more specific
your comments, the more useful they will be. Landowners or other
stakeholders who already submitted comments during pre-filing need not
resubmit those comments. To ensure that your comments are timely and
properly recorded, please send your comments so that the Commission

receives them in Washington, DC on or before May 28, 2013.
    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit
your comments to the Commission. In all instances, please reference the
Project docket number (CP13-96-000) with your submission. The
Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has expert
staff available to assist you at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature located on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the
link to Documents and Filings. This is an easy method for interested
persons to submit brief, text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You can file your comments electronically using the eFiling
feature located on the Commission's Web site (www.ferc.gov) under the
link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide comments
in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your
submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking
on ``eRegister.'' You must select the type of filing you are making. If
you are filing a comment on a particular project, please select
``Comment on a Filing''; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the following address: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Room 1A, Washington, DC
20426.

Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials;
environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; other
interested parties; and local libraries and newspapers. This list also
includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's
regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property
may be used temporarily for Project purposes, or who own homes within
certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits
comments on the Project. We will update the environmental mailing list
as the analysis proceeds to ensure that we send the information related
to this environmental review to all individuals, organizations, and
government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the
proposed Project.
    Copies of the EA will be sent to the environmental mailing list for
public review and comment. If you would prefer to receive a paper copy
of the document instead of the CD version or would like to remove your
name from the mailing list, please return the attached Information
Request (Appendix 3).

Becoming an Intervenor

    You may want to become an ``intervenor'' which is an official party
to the Commission's proceeding. Intervenors play a more formal role in
the process and are able to file briefs, appear at hearings, and be
heard by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final
ruling. An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing
a request to intervene. Instructions for becoming an intervenor are in
the User's Guide under the ``e-filing'' link on the Commission's Web
site.

Additional Information

    Additional information about the Project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC Web site (www.ferc.gov) using the eLibrary link. Click on the
eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the docket number,
excluding the last three digits in the Docket Number field (i.e., CP13-
96). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY,
contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. The eLibrary link also provides access to the
texts of formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders,
notices, and rulemakings.
    In addition, the Commission offers a free service called
eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances
and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time
you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with
notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to
the documents. Go to www.ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm. More information
about the Project may also be found on Gulf South's Web site http://www.gulfsouthpl.com/ExpansionProjects.aspx?id=1589.

    Dated: April 26, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-10612 Filed 5-3-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P