[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 87 (Friday, May 4, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 26538]
[FR Doc No: 2012-10788]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ID-6627-001]

Vigue, Peter A.; Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on April 26, 2012, Peter A. Vigue submitted for
filing, a supplement to the application for authority to hold
interlocking positions filed on March 6, 2012, pursuant to section
305(b) of the Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 825d(b) (2011) and section
45.8 of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of
Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 45.8 (2011).
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on May 17, 2012.

    Dated: April 26, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-10788 Filed 5-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: November 9, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 217)]
[Notices]
[Page 63621]
[DOCID:fr09no07-84]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No.CGD08-07-041]

Houston/Galveston Navigation Safety Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Houston/Galveston Navigation Safety Advisory Committee
(HOGANSAC) will meet to elect a new committee chairperson, vice-
chairperson and chairpersons for subcommittees. The meeting will not be
a working meeting. This meeting will be open to the public.

DATES: The meeting will be held on Tuesday, November 27, 2007 from 9-10
a.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Houston Pilots Association,
8150 South Loop East, Houston, Texas 77011-1747,<PHONE_NUMBER>. This
notice is available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Commander Hal R. Pitts, Executive
Secretary of HOGANSAC, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Lieutenant Sean Hughes, Assistant to the

Executive Secretary of HOGANSAC, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of this meeting is given pursuant to
the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (Pub. L. 92-463).
    Agenda of the Meeting:
    Houston/Galveston Navigation Safety Advisory Committee (HOGANSAC).
The tentative agenda includes the following:
    (1) Opening remarks by Executive Director (CAPT Diehl) or Executive
Director's representative.
    (2) HOGANSAC membership election of chairperson and vice-
chairperson.
    (3) Membership election of seven (07) subcommittee chairpersons.
    Information On Services For The Handicapped: For information on
facilities or services for the handicapped or to request special
assistance at the meetings, contact the Executive Secretary or
Assistant to the Executive Secretary as soon as possible.

    November 5, 2007.
J.R. Whitehead,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 07-5606 Filed 11-06-07; 2:13 pm]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-M


[Federal Register: December 18, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 242)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 75694-75703]
[DOCID:fr18de06-17]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2004-WI-0002; FRL-8258-1]

Federal Implementation Plan Under the Clean Air Act for Certain
Trust Lands of the Forest County Potawatomi Community Reservation if
Designated as a PSD Class I Area; State of Wisconsin

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: On June 29, 1995, and July 10, 1997, EPA proposed to approve a
request by the Forest County Potawatomi Community (FCP Community) to
redesignate certain trust lands within its reservation as Class I with
respect to the Clean Air Act (CAA) Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) construction permit program. In these proposals,
EPA did not explicitly state the mechanism it would use if it granted
the redesignation request nor did the Agency include a draft of its
codification. In this action, EPA is proposing that it will promulgate
a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) if it approves FCP Community's
request and

this action proposes potential codification language. This FIP will be
implemented by EPA unless or until it is replaced by a Tribal
Implementation Plan (TIP).

DATES: Comments. Comments must be received on or before January 17,
2007.
    Public Hearing. The EPA intends to hold two public hearings on this
proposed action, one on the Forest County Potawatomi Reservation and
one in the nearby community. The dates, times, and location of these
public hearings will be announced shortly in a separate Federal
Register notice.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2004-WI-0002 by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for

submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Attention Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2004-WI-0002,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA West (Air Docket), 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Mail Code 6102T, Washington, DC 20460. Please
include a total of 2 copies.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA
West (Air Docket), 1301 Constitution Avenue, Northwest, Room 3334,
Washington, DC 20004, Attention Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2004-WI-0002.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2004-WI-0002. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-
mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an anonymous access system,

which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-
mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov,

your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part
of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available
on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends
that you include your name and other contact information in the body of
your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
instructions on submitting comments, go to section I.B of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Air Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Avenue, Northwest, Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room
is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is
(202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202)
566-1742.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For technical information, contact
Constantine Blathras, Air and Radiation Division, U.S. EPA, Region 5
(AR-18J), 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604-3507,
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>, facsimile number:<PHONE_NUMBER>,
electronic mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does This Action Apply to Me?

    This action if finally promulgated will apply to applicants to the
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) construction permit
program on Class I trust lands of the Forest County Potawatomi
Community (FCP Community).

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly

mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For
CBI information in a disk or CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the
outside of the disk or CD-ROM as CBI and then identify electronically
within the disk or CD-ROM the specific information that is claimed as
CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes
information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain
the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the
public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. Also, send an
additional copy clearly marked as above not only to the Air docket but
to: Roberto Morales, c/o OAQPS Document Control Officer, (C339-03),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711,
Attention Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2004-WI-0002.
    2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
     Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
     Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives
and substitute language for your requested changes.
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used.
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

C. Where Can I Get a Copy of This Document and Other Related
Information?

    In addition to being available electronically in
http://www.regulations.gov, electronic copies of the docket are also available

at the following repositories: Crandon Public Library, Attention: Tina
Inger, Director, 110 West Polk Street, Crandon, Wisconsin 54520;
Rhinelander District Library, Attention: Kris Adams Wendt, Director,
106 North Stevens Street Rhinelander, Wisconsin 54501; and the Forest
County Potawatomi

Natural Resource Department, Attention: Daniele Dusold, Wensaut Lane,
Crandon, Wisconsin 54520.

D. How Can I Find Information About a Possible Public Hearing?

    The EPA intends to hold two public hearings on this action, one on
the Forest County Potawatomi Reservation and one off-reservation. The
dates, times, and location of these public hearings will be announced
shortly in a separate Federal Register notice. Persons interested in
attending the public hearing should contact Mr. J. Elmer Bortzer, Air
and Radiation Division, U.S. EPA, Region 5 (AR-18J), 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604-3507, telephone number: (312) 886-
1430, facsimile number:<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>to verify the time, date, and location of the

hearing. The public hearing will provide interested parties the
opportunity to present data, views, or arguments concerning these
proposed changes.

E. Overview of the Rule

    The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Does This Action Apply to Me?
     B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
    C. Where Can I Get a Copy of This Document and Other Related
Information?
    D. How Can I Find Information About a Possible Hearing?
    E. Overview of Rule
II. Purpose
III. Background
    A. The FCP Community Request for Redesignation to Class I. Brief
Summary of Past Comments
    B. The CAA's PSD Program in Indian Country
IV. Tribal Implementation Plans and Federal Implementation Plans
V. The Federal Implementation Plan for the FCP Community's Class I
Area
    A. Current Codification of the PSD Program in Wisconsin and the
FCP Community Lands
    B. Proposed Codification for an FCP Community Class I
Redesignation
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1966 (SBREFA), 5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health & Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
    J. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
VII. Statutory Authority

II. Purpose

    In this action, EPA is proposing to codify the Class I resignations
in a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) if the Agency approves the FCP
Communty's redesignation request; this notice also proposes potential
codification language. The EPA solicits comments on today's proposal as
to whether a FIP is the appropriate mechanism with which to codify the
FCP Community's redesignation of their lands to Class I, if approved,
the proposed codification, and any related procedural issues. Although
EPA strongly encourages commenters to focus on these issues, comments
on other aspects of the redesignation request will also be accepted.
Interested parties should submit comments as detailed in the ADDRESSES
section of this proposed rule.

III. Background

A. The FCP Community Request for Redesignation to Class I

    On February 14, 1995, the FCP Community submitted a formal request
to EPA to redesignate certain trust lands within their reservation to
Class I under the CAA PSD construction permit program. On June 29, 1995
(60 FR 33779), and July 10, 1997 (62 FR 37007), EPA proposed to approve
the request. In addition, in 1997 EPA also held public hearings on the
redesignation request.
    Both Wisconsin and Michigan objected to the proposed redesignation
and requested dispute resolution under Section 164(e) of the CAA. To
resolve the dispute with the State of Wisconsin, the FCP Community and
Wisconsin entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (FCP Community-
Wisconsin MOA) for implementation of the proposed Class I area in
Wisconsin. For those provisions of the agreement, and any other aspects
of the dispute resolution that will need to be made federally
enforceable, EPA will codify them as appropriate should it determine to
grant the redesignation request. For example, the agreement's
limitation of certain increment analyses to a ten mile radius may need
to be codified in federally enforceable regulations.
    Specifically, the agreement between the FCP Community and Wisconsin
subjects all major sources in Wisconsin located within a ten (10) mile
radius of any redesignated Tribal land to performing an increment
analysis and to meeting consumption requirements applicable to a class
I area. Major sources located outside of ten (10) miles are subject to
increment analysis and consumption requirements applicable to any
redesignated Tribal land as if it were a class II area. Also under the
agreement, all major sources within sixty-two (62) miles are subject to
an analysis of their impact on air quality related values (AQRVs) of
the redesignated Tribal lands to determine if they will have an adverse
impact on these AQRVs.
    The Agency believes that the Tribe and Wisconsin may enter into
such an agreement. When the dispute resolution process in section
164(e) is invoked by an affected state or tribe, EPA is called upon to
participate in that process and to recommend a resolution, if requested
by the parties, or to finally resolve the dispute, if the parties are
unable to reach agreement. However, where the parties successfully
reach agreement through the dispute resolution process, EPA is inclined
to read section 164(e) of the CAA to provide that EPA has no further
role to play in the dispute resolution process. The EPA is not required
to review or approve the terms of the agreement, and the Agency is
inclined to respect agreements that obviate the need for the
Administrator to make a decision resolving the matter. If the parties
to the dispute reach an agreement through the 164(e) process without
EPA resolution, EPA proposes not to interfere with the agreement and to
rest its final decision to approve or deny the redesignation on the
criteria in 164(b)(2) of the CAA.
    In commenting on the proposed codification, commenters may wish to
comment on the potential need to codify certain provisions of the
agreement or aspects of the dispute resolution as well. The FCP
Community-Wisconsin MOA, together with related materials, is available
in the docket for this proposal. The FCP Community and the State of
Michigan have not been able to resolve their differences. The EPA
anticipates acting on the FCP Community request and remaining aspects
of the dispute resolution process with the States after the close of
the public comment period on today's proposal.
Brief Summary of Past Comments
    During the initial comment period and public hearings, EPA received
several comments on the proposed redesignation. The Agency will respond
to all significant comments in the final rule resolving the
redesignation request,

but includes a brief discussion and response to two of those comments.
    First, several commenters argued that the request for redesignation
should be denied either because the FCP Community identified certain
air quality related values (``AQRVs'') after submitting their initial
request or that the lands proposed for redesignation were not of
sufficient size or quality to possess AQRVs. However, neither Section
164(b) of the CAA nor EPA's implementing regulations governing
redesignation require a State or Tribe requesting a redesignation to
demonstrate or establish that the affected lands have AQRVs, and
Congress did not make AQRVs a prerequisite for redesignation of non-
federal Class I areas. It is therefore unnecessary for EPA to determine
what AQRVs the lands at issue might possess in order for the Agency to
act on, including granting, the redesignation request. See 61 FR 56450,
56458-56459 (Nov. 1, 1996) (redesignation of Yavapai-Apache lands).
    A second area of significant comment alleged that the areas
proposed for redesignation were either too small or too dispersed to
allow for effective air quality management as discussed in sections 162
and 164 of the CAA. Section 162 of the Act designates certain areas as
mandatory Class I areas. The Act also provides for non-federal Class I
areas, and Section 164(c) specifically states that ``Lands within the
exterior boundaries of reservations of federally recognized Indian
tribes may be redesignated,'' but does not speak to what size lands
might be appropriate for a redesignation to Class I. In disputes
resolving area redesignation, section 164(e) requires EPA to consider
(the extent to which the lands involved are of sufficient size to allow
effective air quality management.'' In its decision to grant the Class
I redesignation request for the Yavapai-Apache reservation, (which is
similar to the FCP reservation in that it consists of a number of
relatively small, discrete parcels of land), EPA examined whether it
would be difficult to perform a PSD air quality modeling analysis that
assessed the impacts of a proposed source in such a situation. The EPA
concluded that based on existing modeling tools it would be relatively
simple and practicable for a proposed source to project its impact on
the Class I area parcels and evaluate the analysis. See 61 Fed. Reg. at
56457-56458. Consideration of the size of the redesignated lands,
therefore, can be evaluated based upon the Agency's experience in the
Yavapai-Apache redesignation. We solicit comment on the two issues
presented above and EPA's response to them.

B. The CAA's PSD Program in Indian Country

    The CAA gives EPA broad authority to protect air resources
throughout the nation, including the resources on Indian reservations
and other areas of Indian country. Part C of the CAA lays out the PSD
construction permit program. It is based on the concept that new
sources and modifications of existing sources in relatively pollution
free lands, i.e., lands attaining the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS), should not be allowed to increase emissions such
that ambient pollutant levels rise to the level of the NAAQS. Instead,
these sources' emissions are limited such that ambient levels cannot
exceed the pollutant specific increments in the CAA or EPA regulations.
The CAA provides three levels of increments for each pollutant, Class I
which is the most stringent, Class II, which is what most of the United
States was initially designated by the CAA, and Class III, which is the
least stringent. Section 164 affords states and tribes the right to
request that EPA redesignate lands under their control. Historically
only tribes have made such requests, and in all these cases, the tribes
requested redesignation from Class II to Class I. The FCP Community,
likewise, requested that EPA redesignate certain of their lands from
Class II to Class I. Under the CAA, generally EPA must approve this
request if all procedural requirements are met.
    One of the tribes that requested redesignation from Class II to
Class I before FCP Community was the Yavapai Apache Tribe, and on
October 2, 1996 EPA approved the request. The State of Arizona, within
which the Yavapai Apache lands were located, had raised objections to
the redesignation and requested to enter into Section 164(e) dispute
negotiations with the Yavapai Apache. The EPA held a meeting with the
parties, but ultimately no agreement was reached. The EPA was forced to
resolve the dispute, and did so by granting the redesignation request
and codifying the redesignation in a FIP. 61 FR 56461 (November 1,
1996) and 61 FR 56450 (November 1, 1996). The State of Arizona
continued to dispute the approval of the reservation to Class I and
filed a suit before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit. See, Administrator, State of Arizona v. EPA, 151 F.3d 1205
(9th Cir. 1998). The Ninth Circuit's decision stated, among other
things, that EPA should have codified the Class I area in a TIP rather
than a FIP, and remanded the redesignation back to the EPA regional
office so that EPA could follow the appropriate procedures for
promulgating the Class I area as a TIP.
    On February 12, 1998, however, EPA promulgated a final rule under
section 301 of the CAA entitled ``Indian Tribes: Air Quality Planning
and Management.'' 63 FR 7254 (Feb. 12, 1998). This rule, generally
referred to as the ``Tribal Authority Rule'' or ``TAR,'' discusses
those provisions of the CAA for which it is appropriate to treat Indian
tribes in the same manner as states and establishes the requirements
that Indian tribes must meet if they choose to seek such treatment. The
EPA also concluded that certain provisions of the CAA should not be
applied to tribes in exactly the same manner in which they were applied
to states. One of those provisions was CAA 110(c)(1), which provides
the Administrator with the authority to promulgate a FIP within 2 years
of finding that a State plan is insufficient. 63 FR at 7265. EPA
reasoned that tribes, unlike states, ``in general are in the early
stages of developing air planning and implementation expertise''
because the specific authority for tribes to establish air programs was
first expressly addressed in 1990. Id. at 7264-7265. Because tribes
were only recent participants in the process, EPA determined it would
be inappropriate to hold them to the same deadlines and Federal
oversight as the states. Id. at 7265.
    The EPA noted, though, that it was ``not relieved of its general
obligation under the CAA to ensure the protection of air quality
throughout the nation, including throughout Indian country.'' Id. The
EPA concluded that the Agency could ``act to protect the air quality
pursuant to its `gap-filling' authority under the CAA as a whole'' and
that ``section 301(d)(4) provides EPA with discretionary authority, in
cases where it has determined that treatment of tribes as identical to
states is `inappropriate or administratively infeasible,' to provide
for direct administration through other regulatory means.'' Id. Under
that authority, EPA adopted 40 CFR 49.11, which set the standard for
adoption of FIP provisions for Indian Country: ``[The Administrator]
[s]hall promulgate without unreasonable delay such Federal
implementation plan provisions as are necessary or appropriate to
protect air quality, consistent with the provisions of section 304(a)
(sic 301(a)) and 301(d)(4), if a tribe does not submit a tribal
implementation plan meeting the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part
51, Appendix V, or does not receive

EPA approval of a submitted tribal implementation plan.'' 40 CFR
49.11(a). The intent of this provision was to recognize that tribes may
not initially have the capability to implement their own delegated CAA
programs and that the TAR does not relieve EPA of its general
obligation under the CAA to protect air quality throughout the nation,
including in Indian country. See 63 FR 7265.
    Therefore, the TAR established two possible routes for the
codification of a Class I redesignation on Tribal lands: (1) A TIP, if
one has been developed by the Tribe and approved by EPA; and (2) A FIP,
if a TIP did not exist and a FIP was necessary to protect air quality.

IV. Tribal Implementation Plans and Federal Implementation Plans

    Consistent with the approach detailed in the TAR, U.S. EPA Region 5
sent a letter to the FCP Community requesting that the Tribe specify
what mechanism they wished to use to codify the proposed redesignation
to Class I. On August 4, 1999, Harold Frank, Chairman, Forest County
Potawatomi Community, sent a letter to Francis X. Lyons, Regional
Administrator of EPA Region 5, requesting that EPA promulgate the
redesignation of the proposed Class I area parcels in a FIP. The FCP
asked EPA to promulgate the Class I area redesignation into a FIP, as
opposed to utilizing a TIP, because the FCP Community was continuing to
build its capacity and infrastructure to run a Tribal Air Program and
was not yet ready to submit its own TIP. On August 23, 1999, EPA sent a
letter to the FCP Community agreeing to their request for the Class I
redesignation being promulgated in a FIP, should EPA's rulemaking
result in the approval of the FCP Community's request.
    Until such time as the FCP Community develops a TIP and has it
approved, EPA retains the authority to promulgate the redesignation
approval in a FIP. Because the FCP Community's request and EPA's
original proposal pre-dated the TAR, neither clearly specified the
manner in which the redesignation would be codified. The EPA has,
therefore, published this supplemental proposal to seek comment on the
codification of the FCP Community redesignation, if approved, in a FIP.

V. The Federal Implementation Plan for the FCP Community's Class I Area

A. Current Codification of the PSD Program in Wisconsin and the FCP
Community Lands

    On August 7, 1980, EPA promulgated the Federal PSD Program
regulations which are codified at 40 CFR 52.21, and which applied to
those states that had not submitted a PSD program meeting the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.166. 45 FR 52741 (August 7, 1980), as amended
at 46 FR 9585 (January 29, 1981). Wisconsin was one such state, and as
a result, Wisconsin initially implemented the Federal PSD program under
a delegation of authority from EPA. Wisconsin subsequently submitted a
PSD rule and program which EPA approved for all sources in Wisconsin
except for sources located on tribal lands and other sources that
require permits issued by the EPA. See 64 FR 28748 (May 27, 1999). The
current EPA regulation addressing the PSD program in Wisconsin reads as
follows:

40 CFR 52.2581. Significant deterioration of air quality.

    (a)-(c) [Reserved]
    (d) The requirements of sections 160 through 165 of the Act are
met, except for sources seeking permits to locate in Indian country
within the State of Wisconsin; and sources with permits issued by
EPA prior to the effective date of the state's rules.
    (e) Regulations for the prevention of the significant
deterioration of air quality. The provisions of Sec.  52.21(b)
through (w) are hereby incorporated and made a part of the
applicable State plan for the State of Wisconsin for sources wishing
to locate in Indian country; and sources constructed under permits
issued by EPA.

B. Proposed Codification for an FCP Community Class I Redesignation

    Under the authority of section 307(d) of the Act, EPA is proposing
to revise its regulation as reflected below if EPA approves the FCP
Community request to designate some of its reservation as Class I. In
today's action, EPA is proposing that it will promulgate the
resignation in a FIP if EPA approves the FCP Community's request for
redesignation of certain lands within the exterior boundaries of the
Tribe's reservation. This FIP will be implemented by EPA unless or
until it is replaced by a Tribal Implementation Plan (TIP). The
proposed codification language follows Section VII below.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and
is therefore not subject to review under the EO.
    The FCP Community prepared an analysis of the potential costs and
benefits associated with this action. This analysis is contained in
``EPA memorandum dated October 25, 2004''. A copy of the analysis is
available in the docket for this action and is briefly summarized here.
    As part of its application package for Class I redesignation, the
FCP Community has analyzed the potential economic impact of
redesignation on the affected region (Forest County and those counties
bordering Forest County). This analysis directly supports a finding
that the impact of the proposed redesignation would not result in an
adverse annual impact to the economy of $100 million or more.
    As discussed in greater detail in the memorandum, the FCP Community
analysis identifies those economic sectors with the largest employment
in the area. These are industry, manufacturing and trade, which
together account for 46% of the jobs in the affected area. To evaluate
the effect of Class I redesignation on economic expansion and future
industrial plant development in the affected area, the FCP Community
prepared an independent air dispersion modeling analysis to determine
the air quality impacts on the Class I area from various new projects.
These included a 250-ton-per-day paper mill, three different types of
power plants, and a mining project.
    The modeling and screening results analyzed indicate that the
proposed Class I redesignation should not have major effects on
economic expansion and industrial development in the region. The
redesignation could restrict the sitting of large paper mills and large
coal-fired powered plants to at least 10 km from the reservation, and
would limit the development of multiple projects that would have an
unacceptable cumulative effect on the Class I increments, but none of
these known proposed developments in the region would be adversely
affected.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
We are not promulgating any new paperwork requirements (e.g.,
monitoring, reporting, recordkeeping) as part of this proposed action.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has previously approved the
information collection requirements contained in the existing
regulations (40 CFR parts 51 and 52) under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and has assigned OMB
control number 2060-0003, EPA ICR

number 1230.17.\1\ A copy of the OMB approved Information Collection
Request (ICR) may be obtained from Susan Auby, Collection Strategies
Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2822T); 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460 or by calling (202) 566-
1672.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The regulations covered under this ICR govern the State and
Federal programs for preconstruction review and permitting of major
new and modified sources pursuant to Part C ``Prevention of
Significant Deterioration'' (PSD) and Part D ``Program Requirements
for Nonattainment Areas'' of the CAA. The types of information
collection activities addressed in this ICR are those necessary for
the preparation and submittal of construction permit applications
and the issuance of final permits.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This analysis included an examination of the additional regulatory
burden, per regulated unit, on those sources constructing or modifying
near a Class I area, and which may be required to perform a Federal
Class I area analysis to determine the effect of the proposed source on
AQRV inside the Class I area, and on the consumption of increment,
where the baseline has been triggered. It is important to note that not
all sources located near Class I areas would have to perform such
monitoring; these requirements apply only when emissions from the
source have the potential to impact the Class I area.
    The EPA's analysis for OMB included the additional burden placed
upon the regulated community as well as on State and Federal agencies.
The redesignation of FCP Community lands from Class II to Class I is
wholly consistent with the analysis put forth in EPA's ICR and OMB's
approval and no new paperwork requirements are being promulgated with
this action.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.

    The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this proposed action on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as
defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13
CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government
of a city, county, town, school district, or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; or (3) a small organization that is any
not-for-profit enterprise that is independently owned and operated and
is not dominant in its field. This action does not require a regulatory
flexibility analysis because it will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    The EPA believes that the reclassification of the proposed area to
Class I will impose virtually no additional requirements on small
entities, regardless of whether they are minor sources or major
sources. For small entities that are also minor sources, since at the
present time the baseline concentrations for this area have not been
triggered and none of the Class I increments have yet been consumed,
minor emission sources are unaffected by PSD requirements. Should the
Class I increments be completely consumed in the future, it is possible
that some pollution control requirements would fall to minor sources.
However, any such future pollution control requirements imposed on off-
reservation sources would be under the jurisdiction of the states, not
EPA. Therefore, EPA is not in a present or future position to directly
regulate small entities and therefore is not required to conduct an RFA
analysis.
    For small entities that are major sources, the impact is not
expected to be substantial. As demonstrated in section VI.A. above, the
requirements for demonstrating compliance with the NAAQS and PSD
increments for major facilities in and surrounding Class I areas are
similar to the requirements for major facilities in and surrounding
Class II areas. Therefore, this action will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    While EPA is not required to conduct an RFA analysis, as a matter
of good public policy, the Agency has reviewed information on the
impact of the redesignation provided by the FCP Community in its
Technical Support Document (TSD) submitted pursuant to the tribe's
request for Class I redesignation. In this document, the Tribe reviewed
the potential impact of the Class I redesignation on various types of
sources, concluding that impacts of the redesignation to Class I would
impact only certain major stationary sources, and would impose no
additional requirements on minor sources.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The EPA has prepared an ICR analysis for the NSR program
generally, finding that ``Approximately 2,200 'small business''
major sources were estimated to exist; however, only 50 small
business facilities employing 500 persons or fewer were projected to
be subject to NSR annually. Based on the methodology incorporated in
that rulemaking Regulatory Impact Analysis, the Agency concluded
that the current part 51 and 52 NSR regulations do not constitute a
disproportionate burden on small entities.'' U.S. EPA, ``Information
Collection Request for 40 CFR Part 51 and 52 Prevention of
Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment New Source Review,
October 12, 2004, at 13.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For example, air dispersion modeling and EPA-approved screening
performed for the Tribe's TSD demonstrates that a 140 MW natural gas
fired combustion turbine power plant could be constructed and operated
directly adjacent to the reservation without violating any of the Class
I increments. Power plants of this type produce relatively high levels
of nitrogen oxides (NOX), which are their major emissions,
yet despite its direct proximity to a Class I area, such a facility
would impact only a small fraction (~4%) of the allowable Class I
increment for NOX. Considering that the FCP Community
analysis shows that a major gas-fired power generating facility could
be operated immediately next to the reservation without significant
impacts, and that only very large industrial projects located within
approximately 10 km of the reservation would be affected by the
redesignation, it appears very unlikely that any small businesses
located within 100 kilometers would produce emissions in large enough
quantities to trigger the Class I restrictions.
    Nevertheless, it is possible that a small business located close
enough to the reservation may be a major source of criteria air
pollutants. Even in that

event, the PSD requirements for Class I areas would be very unlikely to
impose a significant financial burden on such a small business. If it
is an existing business at the time the redesignation goes into effect,
it would not be subject to the PSD permitting requirements, which apply
only to new stationary sources or major modifications to existing
sources.
    Even if the small business in question was new to the Class I area,
hence subject to PSD permitting, the redesignation would still not
impose additional significant financial or regulatory burdens on the
small entity. As a major source of criteria air pollutants, the small
business would be subject to PSD permitting regulations whether the
reservation had been redesignated to Class I or had remained a Class II
area, as it is now. Major stationary sources proposing to locate in any
PSD area, regardless of whether it is Class II or Class I, must still
conduct the same type of analyses to measure the impact of their
emissions on the allowable increments and use the best available
control technology to reduce their emissions and minimize adverse
effects.
    Should the area remain Class II, the major source would still be
required to perform a modeling analysis to ensure that the Class II
increments are protected in order to obtain a permit. Since a modeling
analysis is required in any case, the cost of adding additional
receptor points, if needed, to the modeling analysis to gather the
necessary data to ensure that the Class I increments will also be
protected should be relatively small. Likewise, since every major
stationary source proposing to locate in a PSD area, whether it has
been designated as Class I or Class II, must employ ``best available
control technology'' to reduce emissions, proximity to a Class I area
generally would not affect the level of control required to meet BACT.
In short, regardless of whether they are in a Class II or a Class I
area, major sources are required to obtain an air quality permit,
conduct modeling analyses, and use the best available technology to
control emissions under the PSD program. Thus, as a general rule,
redesignation should not inflict additional control costs on a source.
    Under certain circumstances a major source may be required to
achieve further decreases in emissions to reduce its impact on the air
quality related values of a Class I area. Such a requirement would
necessitate further regulatory action by either the FCP Community or
EPA, however, and the impacts of the specific requirements can be
appropriately assessed at that time. Additionally, it would be very
unusual for a small business to also be a major source and a
substantial number of small entities should certainly not be so
affected.
    Several other Indian tribes have redesignated tribal lands to Class
I in other parts of the country, and their experience can provide us
with some insight into the impact redesignation typically has on small
entities in the vicinity. These include the Northern Cheyenne Tribe,
Montana; Flathead Indian Reservation, Montana; Fort Peck Indian
Reservation, Montana and the Spokane Indian Reservation, Washington,
which were redesignated as Class I areas between 1977 and 1990. Thus
far, there has been very little economic impact on small businesses,
nearby towns, local governments or other small entities following Class
I redesignation in those areas. The EPA has no reason to believe that
same pattern of minimal economic impact to small businesses will not be
repeated in Forest County and the surrounding counties.
    Small entities that are minor sources of air pollution will not be
affected at all by this action at this time. The PSD permit program
does not cover minor sources and, as previously discussed, EPA does not
directly regulate minor entities. The reclassification of the proposed
area to Class I therefore imposes virtually no additional requirements
on small entities since the baseline concentration level for Forest
County has not yet been triggered and none of the PSD increments in the
area have yet been consumed. The baseline concentration is the
conceptual reference point or ''starting'' point for determining air
quality deterioration in an area subject to the PSD program. Thus, the
baseline concentration is essentially the ambient air quality existing
at the time the first complete PSD application is made for a major new
source affecting a PSD baseline area. Since no PSD permit application
triggering a baseline date has been submitted in the Forest County
area, there has not been any consumption of the PSD increments in the
area. Should major and minor sources of pollution consume all of the
available increment in an area at some point in the future, it is
possible that some pollution control requirements would then fall to
minor sources, but since roughly 75% of the land in Forest County is
National Forest, and there is presently very little industrial
development in the area, there is likely to be little consumption of
the Class I increments for some time to come.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This
proposed rule will not impose any requirements on small entities that
are not major sources because this action affects only major stationary
sources, as defined by 40 CFR 52.21.
    We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the
proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related
to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), P.L.
104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives, and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
    The EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100

million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. The redesignation
would not impose significant additional financial or regulatory burdens
on a new or modified source subject to the PSD permitting requirements.
As a major source of criteria air pollutants, a new or modified source
would be subject to PSD regulations whether the reservation had been
redesignated to Class I or had remained a Class II area, as it is now.
New major stationary sources proposing to locate in any PSD area,
regardless of whether it is Class II or Class I, must still conduct the
same type of analyses to measure the impact of their emissions on the
allowable increments and use the best available control technology to
reduce their emissions and minimize adverse effects. No additional
permits would be required as a result of a redesignation of FCP
Community reservation lands. Thus, today's rule is not subject to the
requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
    The EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. EPA has determined that this rule contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments because, as already stated in other sections of this
regulatory package, the redesignation from a Class II to a Class I area
would not impose additional significant financial or regulatory burdens
on sources.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255)
(August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to
ensure ``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in
the development of regulatory policies that have federalism
implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism implications'' is
defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that 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.''
    Under section 6 of Executive Order 13132, we may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or we consult
with State and local officials early in the process of developing the
proposed regulation. We also may not issue a regulation that has
federalism implications and that preempts State law, unless we consult
with State and local officials early in the process of developing the
proposed regulation.
    This proposed rule 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,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. The rule merely implements an
authority currently available to Indian tribes to redesignate their
reservation lands under the PSD program of the CAA, and does not alter
the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities
established in the CAA. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to
this rule.
    Although section 6 of Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this
rule, EPA did consult with State and local officials in developing this
rule. A summary of the concerns raised during that consultation and
EPA's response to those concerns will be provided when EPA issues its
final rulemaking.

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

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' 65 FR 67249 (November 6, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.''
    The EPA has concluded that this proposed rule establishing federal
standards will have tribal implications. Thus, consistent with section
3 of the Executive Order, in the process of developing this proposal,
EPA consulted with FCP tribal officials to permit them to have
meaningful and timely input into its development. EPA consulted with
representatives of the FCP Community prior to their submission of the
redesignation request. During this consultation, EPA explained the
function of the CAA's redesignation provision, differences between
Class I and Class II designations, and alternatives to the proposed
Class I redesignation. The FCP Community chose to submit a request for
redesignation to Class I on February 14, 1995. Since the FCP Community
submitted its request for redesignation, EPA has kept the FCP Community
informed of its process for completing the rulemaking through written
correspondence, conference calls, and face to face meetings when
appropriate. Records of these communications are found in the docket
for this proposed action. Most recently, EPA officials held
consultations with the FCP Community between May and July 2006 to
discuss this proposed action and to answer the Community's questions.
    Finally, because the proposed action will neither impose
substantial direct compliance costs on tribal governments nor preempt
Tribal law, section 5 of Executive Order 13175 is not applicable. Class
I redesignation will enable the FCP Community to further their goal of
exercising control over reservation resources to better protect the
members of their community. Overall, EPA expects that the impact of the
redesignation to Class I will be positive.

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

    Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks,'' 62 FR 19885 (April 23, 1997), applies
to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant''
as defined under Executive Order 12866; and (2) concerns an
environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action
meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health
or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    This proposed rule is not subject to the Executive Order because
EPA published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking before April 21, 1998.
Nonetheless, as a matter of EPA Policy, the Agency does not have reason
to believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this
action present a disproportionate risk to children.
    Redesignation of the identified parcels of the FCP reservation to
Class I status will reduce the allowable increase of various types of
pollutants. The reduction of these pollutants can only be expected to
better protect the health of tribal members, members of the surrounding
communities, and especially children and asthmatics.
    The adverse health effects of exposure to high levels of criteria
air pollutants such as sulfur dioxide and fine particulate matter are
well known and

well documented.\3\ Sulfur dioxide, for example, is known to irritate
the respiratory system. As explained in the FCP Community's TSD,
exposure to high concentrations for even short periods can cause
bronchial constriction and exposure to lower concentrations of sulfur
dioxide for longer periods and suppresses the respiratory system's
natural defenses to particles and bacteria.\4\ Children and asthmatics
are especially vulnerable to the adverse health effects of sulfur
dioxide.\5\ If the Class I redesignation is codified in a FIP, the
allowable increase of sulfur dioxide after redesignation of the
reservation to Class I status (on an annual arithmetic mean basis) will
be one-tenth of the current Class II allowable increase, thus providing
greater health protection to children from such air pollutants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ What are the Six Common Air Pollutants? (March 23, 2004)
(available at http://www.epa.gov/air/urbanair/6poll.html)

    \4\ SO2--How Sulfur Dioxide Affects the Way We Live &
Breathe. U.S. EPA Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards
(November 2000) (available at http://www.epa.gov/air/urbanair/so2/index.html
)

    \5\ Health and Environmental Impacts of SO2 (September 30, 2003)
(available at http://www.epa.gov/air/urbanair/so2/hlth1.html)

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

    Likewise, the allowable increase in particulate matter after Class
I redesignation (on an annual basis) will be approximately one-fourth
of the current Class II increase. Particulate matter consists of
airborne particles and aerosols ranging in size from less than 1
micrometer to more than 100 micrometers. Aside from natural sources,
industrial activity can release great quantities of particulates (dust,
soot, ash and other solid and liquid particles). Combustion products
emitted during power generation, heating, motor vehicle use and various
industrial processes are also classified as particulate matter. The
vast majority (~99%) of such inhalable particulate matter is trapped in
the upper respiratory tract, but the remainder enters the windpipe and
the lungs, clinging to the protective mucosa. The smallest particles
are deposited in the alveoli and capillaries of the lung, where they
impair the exchange of oxygen and causes shortness of breath. Children,
the elderly, and people with pulmonary problems and respiratory
conditions (e.g., emphysema, bronchitis, asthma, or heart problems) are
the most susceptible to these debilitating effects.\6\ Adverse health
effects from particulate matter are often cumulative and progressive,
worsening as particulates gradually collect in the lungs following
repeated, long-term exposure.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Health and Environmental Impacts of PM (30 September 2003)
(available at http://www.epa.gov/air/urbanair/pm/hlth1.html)

    \7\ PM--Chief Causes for Concern (30 September 2003) (available
at http://www.epa.gov/air/urbanair/pm/chf.html)

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

    Fine particulate matter is the worst offender in that regard.
Scientific studies have shown that particulate matter, especially fine
particles (those particles with an aerodynamic diameter of less than
2.5 micrometers and commonly known as PM2.5), are retained
deep within the lungs.\8\ Short term exposure to such fine particulate
matter can cause lung irritation and may impair immune responses. Some
of the material from the particles can dissolve in the lungs, causing
cell damage, and the particles themselves may consist of compounds that
are toxic or which form acids when combined with moisture in the lungs.
Long-term lower level exposures can cause cancer and other respiratory
illnesses. Reducing the allowable increase in particulate matter by
roughly 75% should thus provide greater health protection from such
afflictions to children on the reservation and in the surrounding
communities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Information on Particulate Matter (FINE) PM. Condensed from
Health and Environmental Effects of Particulate Matter; U.S. EPA
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (July 1997). (available
on http://www.air.dnr.state.ga.us/information/pm25.html)

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

    In short, the environmental health or safety risks addressed by
this action do not present a disproportionate risk to children. In
fact, they are expected to have a positive rather than a negative
impact on children's health and the environment.

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

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001), because it is not a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

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

    Executive Order 12898 requires that each Federal agency make
achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and
addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human
health environmental effects of its programs, policies, and activities
on minorities and low-income populations.
    The EPA believes that the redesignation of FCP Community lands in a
FIP from Class II to Class I area should not raise any environmental
justice issues since it will reduce the allowable increase of various
types of pollutants. Consequently, this redesignation should result in
health benefits to tribal members and members of the surrounding
communities. Therefore, we believe that these regulations would not
have a disproportionate adverse effect on the health or safety of
minority or low income populations.

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law No. 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA
to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides
not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any voluntary consensus
standards.

VII. Statutory Authority

    The statutory authority for this proposed action is provided by
sections 110, 301 and 164 of the CAA as amended (42 U.S.C. 7410, 7601,
and 7474) and 40 CFR Part 52.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Hydrocarbons, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
dioxides.

    Dated: December 11, 2006.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
    For the reasons cited in this action, title 40, chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

    2. Section 52.2581 is amended by revising paragraph (e) and by
adding paragraph (f) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2581  Significant deterioration of air quality.

* * * * *
    (e) Regulations for the prevention of the significant deterioration
of air quality. The provisions of Sec.  52.21(b) through (w) are hereby
incorporated and made a part of the applicable State plan for the State
of Wisconsin for sources wishing to locate in Indian country; and
sources constructed under permits issued by EPA, except as specified in
paragraph (f) of this section.
    (f) Forest County Potawatomi Community reservation lands 80 acres
and over in size and located in Forest County are designated as a Class
I area for the purposes of prevention of significant deterioration of
air quality. The individual parcels listed below all consist of a
description from the Fourth Principal Meridian, with a baseline that is
the Illinois-Wisconsin border:
    (1) Section 14 of Township 36 north (T36N), range 13 east (R13E).
    (2) Section 26 of T36N R13E.
    (3) The west half (W\1/2\) of the east half (E\1/2\) of Section 27
of T36N R13E.
    (4) E\1/2\ of SW\1/4\ of Section 27 of T36N R13E.
    (5) N\1/2\ of N\1/2\ of Section 34 of T36N R13E.
    (6) S\1/2\ of NW\1/4\ of Section 35 of T36N R13E.
    (7) Section 36 of T36N R13E.
    (8) Section 2 of T36N R13E.
    (9) W\1/2\ of Section 2 of T34N R15E.
    (10) Section 10 of T34N R15E.
    (11) S\1/2\ of NW\1/4\ of Section 16 of T34N R15E.
    (12) N\1/2\ of SE\1/4\ of Section 20 of T34N R15E.
    (13) NW\1/4\ of Section 28 of T34N R15E.
    (14) W\1/2\ of NE\1/4\ of Section 28 of T34N R15E.
    (15) W\1/2\ of SW\1/4\ of Section 28 of T34N R15E.
    (16) W\1/2\ of NE\1/4\ of Section 30 of T34N R15E.
    (17) SW\1/4\ of Section 2 of T34N R16E.
    (18) W\1/2\ of NE\1/4\ of Section 12 of T34N R16E.
    (19) SE\1/4\ of Section 12 of T34N R16E.
    (20) E\1/2\ of SW\1/4\ of Section 12 of T34N R16E.
    (21) N\1/2\ of Section 14 of T34N R16E.
    (22) SE\1/4\ of Section 14 of T34N R16E.
    (23) E\1/2\ of Section 16 of T34N R16E.
    (24) NE\1/4\ of Section 20 of T34N R16E.
    (25) NE\1/4\ of Section 24 of T34N R16E.
    (26) N\1/2\ of Section 22 of T35N R16E.
    (27) SE\1/4\ of Section 22 of T35N R16E.
    (28) N\1/2\ of SW\1/4\ of Section 24 of T35N R15E.
    (29) NW\1/4\ of Section 26 of T35N R15E.
    (30) E\1/2\ of Section 28 of T35N R15E.
    (31) E\1/2\ of NW\1/4\ of Section 28 of T35N R15E.
    (32) SW\1/4\ of Section 32 of T35N R15E.
    (33) E\1/2\ of NW\1/4\ of Section 32 of T35N R15E.
    (34) W\1/2\ of NE\1/4\ of Section 32 of T35N R15E.
    (35) NW\1/4\ of Section 34 of T35N R15E.
    (36) N\1/2\ of SW\1/4\ of Section 34 of T35N R15E.
    (37) W\1/2\ of NE\1/4\ of Section 34 of T35N R15E.
    (38) E\1/2\ of Section 36 of T35N R15E.
    (39) SW\1/4\ of Section 36 of T35N R15E.
    (40) S\1/2\ of NW\1/4\ of Section 36 of T35N R15E.
    (41) S\1/2\ of Section 24 of T35N R16E.
    (42) N\1/2\ of Section 26 of T35N R16E.
    (43) SW\1/4\ of Section 26 of T35N R16E.
    (44) W\1/2\ of SE\1/4\ of Section 26 of T35N R16E.
    (45) E\1/2\ of SW\1/4\ of Section 30 of T35N R16E.
    (46) W\1/2\ of SE\1/4\ of Section 30 of T35N R16E.
    (47) N\1/2\ of Section 34 of T35N R16E.

 [FR Doc. E6-21523 Filed 12-15-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 221 (Friday, November 15, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68865-68867]
[FR Doc No: 2013-27382]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2013-0013]

Federal Advisory Council on Occupational Safety and Health
(FACOSH)

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Announcement of FACOSH meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Advisory Council on Occupational Safety and Health
(FACOSH) will meet December 5, 2013, in Washington, DC.

DATES: FACOSH meeting: FACOSH will meet from 1 to 4:30 p.m., Thursday,
December 5, 2013.
    Submission of comments, requests to speak, speaker presentations,
and requests for special accommodations: You must submit (postmark,
send, transmit) comments, requests to speak at the FACOSH meeting,
speaker presentations, and requests for special accommodations to
attend the meeting by November 29, 2013.

ADDRESSES: FACOSH meeting: FACOSH will meet in Rooms N-4437 A-D, U.S.
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210.
    Submission of comments, requests to speak, and speaker
presentations: You may submit comments, requests to speak at the FACOSH
meeting, and speaker presentations using one of the following methods:
    Electronically: You may submit materials, including attachments,
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov, the Federal eRulemaking
Portal. Follow the online instructions for making submissions;
    Facsimile: If your submission, including attachments, does not
exceed 10 pages, you may fax it to the OSHA Docket Office at (202) 693-
1648; or
    Mail, express delivery, hand delivery, or messenger/courier
service: You may submit materials to the OSHA Docket Office, Docket No.
OSHA-2013-0013, Room N-2625, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, (OSHA's TTY
(877) 889-5627). Deliveries (hand, express mail, messenger/courier
service) are accepted during the Department's and the OSHA Docket
Office's normal business hours, 8:15 a.m.-4:45 p.m., e.t., weekdays.
    Requests for special accommodations to attend the FACOSH meeting:
You may submit requests for special accommodations by hard copy,

telephone, or email to Ms. Frances Owens, OSHA Office of
Communications, Room N-3647, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution
Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Instructions: All submissions must include the agency name and
docket number for this Federal Register notice (Docket No. OSHA-2013-
0013). Because of security-related procedures, submissions by regular
mail may result in a significant delay in their receipt. Please contact
the OSHA Docket Office for information about security procedures for
making submissions by hand delivery, express delivery, and messenger/
courier service. For additional information on submitting comments,
requests to speak, and speaker presentations, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section below.
    OSHA will post comments, requests to speak, and speaker
presentations, including any personal information provided, without
change at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions
individuals about submitting certain personal information, such as
Social Security numbers and birthdates.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For press inquiries: Mr. Frank
Meilinger, Director, OSHA Office of Communications, U.S. Department of
Labor, Room N-3647, 200 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For general information: Mr. Francis Yebesi, Director, OSHA Office
of Federal Agency Programs, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N-3622, 200
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20210; telephone (202) 693-
2122; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

FACOSH Meeting

    FACOSH will meet December 5, 2013, in Washington, DC. Some FACOSH
members may attend the meeting electronically. The meeting is open to
the public.
    The tentative agenda for the FACOSH meeting includes:
     Updates from FACOSH subcommittees;
     Status of FACOSH's recommendations on occupational
exposure limits;
     Recordkeeping rule changes affecting Federal agencies;
     Whistleblower protection program best practices;
     Presidential POWER Initiative--update and future metrics;
and
     OPM status report regarding the GS-0018 job series.
    FACOSH is authorized by 5 U.S.C. 7902; section 19 of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (OSH Act) (29 U.S.C. 668);
and Executive Order 11612, as amended, to advise the Secretary of Labor
(Secretary) on all matters relating to the occupational safety and
health of Federal employees. This includes providing advice on how to
reduce and keep to a minimum the number of injuries and illnesses in
the Federal workforce, and how to encourage each Federal Executive
Branch Department and Agency to establish and maintain effective
occupational safety and health programs.
    OSHA transcribes and prepares detailed minutes of FACOSH meetings.
The Agency puts meeting transcripts and minutes plus other materials
presented at the meeting in the public record of the FACOSH meeting,
which is posted at http://www.regulations.gov.

Public Participation, Submissions, and Access to Public Record

    FACOSH meetings: FACOSH meetings are open to the public.
Individuals attending meetings at the U.S. Department of Labor must
enter the building the Visitors' Entrance, 3rd and C Streets, NW., and
pass through building security. Attendees must have valid government-
issued photo identification to enter. For additional information about
building security measures, and requests for special accommodations for
attending the FACOSH meeting, please contact Ms. Owens (see ADDRESSES
section).
    Submission of requests to speak and speaker presentations. You may
submit a request to speak to FACOSH by one of the methods listed in the
ADDRESSES section. Your request must state:
     The amount of time you request to speak;
     The interest you represent (e.g., organization name), if
any; and,
     A brief outline of your presentation.
    PowerPoint speaker presentations and other electronic materials
must be compatible with Microsoft Office 2010 formats. The FACOSH chair
may grant requests to address FACOSH at his discretion, and as time and
circumstances permit.
    Submission of written comments. You also may submit written
comments, including data and other information, using any of the
methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. Your submissions, including
attachments and other materials, must identify the agency name and the
OSHA docket number for this notice (Docket No. OSHA-2013-0013). You may
supplement electronic submissions by uploading documents
electronically. If you wish to submit hard copies of supplementary
documents instead, you must submit them to the OSHA Docket Office
following the instructions in the ADDRESSES section. The additional
materials must clearly identify your electronic submission by name,
date, and docket number. OSHA will provide copies of your submissions
to FACOSH members prior to the meeting.
    Because of security-related procedures, submitting comments,
requests to speak, and speaker presentations by regular mail may cause
a significant delay in their receipt. For information about security
procedures concerning submissions by hand, express delivery, and
messenger/courier service, please contact the OSHA Docket Office (see
ADDRESSES section).
    Access to submissions and public record. OSHA places comments,
requests to speak, speaker presentations, meeting transcripts and
minutes, and other documents presented at the FACOSH meeting in the
public record without change. Those documents also may be available
online at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, OSHA cautions
individuals about submitting certain personal information, such as
Social Security numbers and birthdates.
    To read or download documents in the public record, go to Docket
No. OSHA-2013-0013 at http://www.regulations.gov. Although all meeting
documents are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index, some
documents (e.g., copyrighted material) are not publicly available to
read or download through that Web page. All meeting documents,
including copyrighted material, are available for inspection and
copying at the OSHA Docket Office.
    Information on using the http://www.regualtions.gov to make
submissions and to access the public record of the FACOSH meeting is
available at that Web page. Please contact the OSHA Docket Office for
information about materials not available through that Web page and for
assistance making submissions and obtaining documents in the public
record.
    Electronic copies of this Federal Register notice are available at
http://www.regulations.gov. This notice, as well as news releases and
other relevant information about FACOSH, also is available at OSHA's
Web page at http://www.osha.gov.

Authority and Signature

    David Michaels, Ph.D., MPH, Assistant Secretary of Labor for
Occupational Safety and Health, directed the preparation of this notice
under the authority granted by section 19 of the OSH Act (29 U.S.C.
668); 5 U.S.C. 7902; the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5
U.S.C. App. 2); 41 CFR Part 102-3; section 1-5 of Executive Order 12196
(45 CFR 12629 (2/27/1980)); and Secretary of Labor's Order No. 1-2012
(77 FR 3912 (1/25/2012)).

    Signed at Washington, DC, on November 12, 2013.
David Michaels,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. 2013-27382 Filed 11-14-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 232 (Friday, December 3, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75483-75484]
[FR Doc No: 2010-30388]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2009-D-0533]

Guidance for Industry: Recommendations for Blood Establishments:
Training of Back-Up Personnel, Assessment of Blood Donor Suitability,
and Reporting Certain Changes to an Approved Application; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
availability of a document entitled ``Guidance for Industry:
Recommendations for Blood Establishments: Training of Back-Up
Personnel, Assessment of Blood Donor Suitability and Reporting Certain
Changes to an Approved Application'' dated November 2010. The guidance
document provides recommendations to blood establishments for training
of back-up personnel, assessment of blood donor suitability, and how to
report certain changes to an approved license application to FDA. The
guidance announced in this document finalizes the draft guidance
entitled ``Draft Guidance for Industry: Recommendations for the
Assessment of Blood Donor Suitability, Blood Product Safety, and
Preservation of the Blood Supply in Response to Pandemic (H1N1) 2009
Virus'' dated November 2009. The guidance announced in this document
also is superseding certain recommendations in two previous guidances,
the guidance document entitled ``Guidance for Industry: Changes to an
Approved Application: Biological Products: Human Blood and Blood
Components Intended for Transfusion or for Further Manufacture'' dated
July 2001 and the guidance document entitled ``Guidance for Industry:
Streamlining the Donor Interview Process: Recommendations for Self-
Administered Questionnaires'' dated July 2003.

DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on agency guidances
at any time.

ADDRESSES: Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance to
the Office of Communication, Outreach and Development (HFM-40), Center
for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration,
1401 Rockville Pike, Suite 200N, Rockville, MD 20852-1448. Send one
self-addressed adhesive label to assist the office in processing your
requests. The guidance may also be obtained by mail by calling CBER at
1-800-835-4709 or<PHONE_NUMBER>. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section for electronic access to the guidance document.
    Submit electronic comments on the guidance to http://www.regulations.gov. Submit written comments to the Division of Dockets
Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Benjamin A. Chacko, Center for
Biologics Evaluation and Research (HFM-17), Food and Drug
Administration, 1401 Rockville Pike, Suite 200N, Rockville, MD 20852-
1448,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    FDA is announcing the availability of a document entitled
``Guidance for Industry: Recommendations for Blood Establishments:
Training of Back-Up Personnel, Assessment of Blood Donor Suitability
and Reporting Certain Changes to an Approved Application'' dated
November 2010. The guidance document provides recommendations to blood
establishments for training of back-up personnel, assessment of blood
donor suitability, and reporting certain changes to an approved license
application to FDA.
    In the Federal Register of November 19, 2009 (74 FR 59982), FDA
announced the availability of the draft guidance entitled ``Draft
Guidance for Industry: Recommendations for the Assessment of Blood
Donor Suitability, Blood Product Safety, and Preservation of the Blood
Supply in Response to Pandemic (H1N1) 2009 Virus'' (November 2009). At
that time, we anticipated that the rapid spread of pandemic (H1N1) 2009
virus had the potential to cause disruptions in the blood supply and
that the usual practices for ensuring blood availability in response to
local disasters (i.e., hurricanes) would not be applicable or
sufficient under a severe pandemic scenario. Since we issued the draft
guidance, the H1N1 influenza pandemic has waned in the United States
and disruptions in the blood supply have not been observed. Therefore,
we are not finalizing those recommendations set forth in the draft
guidance that referred to blood donor deferral and blood product
management specific to the pandemic (H1N1) 2009 virus. Instead, we are
finalizing those recommendations contained in the draft guidance that
are of general

applicability (i.e., regardless of the existence of a pandemic or other
emergency situation) as to training of back-up personnel, assessing
blood donor suitability, and reporting certain changes to an approved
application for licensed blood establishments. FDA received a few
comments on the draft guidance in connection with these recommendations
and those comments were considered as the guidance was finalized. In
addition, editorial changes were made to improve clarity. The guidance
announced in this document finalizes the draft guidance dated November
2009.
    The guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance
practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents FDA's
current thinking on this topic. It does not create or confer any rights
for or on any person and does not operate to bind FDA or the public. An
alternative approach may be used if such approach satisfies the
requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.

II. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This guidance refers to previously approved collections of
information found in FDA regulations. These collections of information
are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The
collections of information in 21 CFR part 606 have been approved under
OMB control number 0910-0116. The collections of information for 21 CFR
part 601 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0338.

III. Comments

    Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management
(see ADDRESSES) either electronic or written comments regarding this
document. It is only necessary to send one set of comments. It is no
longer necessary to send two copies of mailed comments. Identify
comments with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of
this document. Received comments may be seen in the Division of Dockets
Management between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

IV. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the Internet may obtain the guidance at
either http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm or http://www.regulations.gov.

    Dated: November 24, 2010.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-30388 Filed 12-2-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 216 (Wednesday, November 9, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67735-67736]
[FR Doc No: 2022-24414]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-96226; File No. SR-ICEEU-2022-021]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; ICE Clear Europe Limited; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating
to Amendments to the Rate of Return on Euro Cash Margin and Guaranty
Fund Deposits

November 3, 2022.
    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 October 25, 2022, ICE Clear Europe Limited (``ICE Clear Europe'' or
the ``Clearing House'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule changes described in
Items I, II and III below, which Items have been prepared primarily by
ICE Clear Europe. ICE Clear Europe filed the proposed rule change
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) \4\
thereunder, such that the proposed rule change was immediately
effective upon filing with the Commission. 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Terms of Substance of the
Proposed Rule Change

    The principal purpose of the proposed amendments is for ICE Clear
Europe to amend the rate of return paid by the Clearing House on Euro
(``EUR'') cash margin and Guaranty Fund deposits. The proposed
amendments do not involve any changes to the ICE Clear Europe Clearing
Rules or Procedures.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Capitalized terms used but not defined herein have the
meanings specified in the ICE Clear Europe Clearing Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, ICE Clear Europe 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. ICE Clear Europe has prepared summaries,
set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most significant
aspects of such statements.

(A) Clearing Agency's Statement of the Purpose of, and Statutory Basis
for, the Proposed Rule Change

(a) Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule changes is for ICE Clear Europe to
its rate of return paid on EUR cash margin and Guaranty Fund deposits
applicable to all Clearing Members for house and customer accounts. ICE
Clear Europe pays a rate of return on cash deposited by Clearing
Members in respect of margin and Guaranty Fund requirements referred to
as the ICE Deposit Rate (the ``IDR''). The IDR is calculated daily and
applied to cash balances held at the close of business on the previous
business day in respect of US Dollar (``USD''), EUR and Pound Sterling
(``GBP'') deposits. The IDR is calculated as the net income earned on
cash deposits in the relevant currency (positive or negative) less a
charge or spread.
    ICE Clear Europe is proposing to reduce the spread for EUR balances
from 25 bps to 15 bps. The spread for USD balances and GBP balances
would remain unchanged at 15 bps and 12 bps respectively. ICE Clear
Europe has determined that in light of current financial market
conditions, including central bank rates for Euro deposits and repo
rates available in the market, it is appropriate to increase the net
IDR on EUR balances (through a lower spread). ICE Clear Europe believes
the change would better align the relative costs and benefits of using
EUR to cover margin and Guaranty Fund obligations with otherwise
available market rates and facilitate the Clearing House's ability to
maintain adequate EUR balances for liquidity management purposes.
(b) Statutory Basis
    ICE Clear Europe believes that the proposed rule changes are
consistent with the requirements of the Act, including Section 17A of
the Act \6\ and regulations thereunder applicable to it. In particular,
Section 17A(b)(3)(D) of the Act \7\ requires that ``[t]he rules of the
clearing agency provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable
dues, fees and other charges among its participants''. ICE Clear Europe
believes that the IDR, as proposed to be amended, would be reasonable
and appropriate in light of current market conditions, including
available repo rates and central bank rates for EUR deposits available
in the market. The proposed modifications would apply to all Clearing
Members and other market participants who hold cash balances in EUR.
Further, ICE Clear Europe has determined that the revised spread would
better align the relative costs and benefits of using EUR with
otherwise available market rates for EUR balances and thereby
facilitate the Clearing House's liquidity management with regard to EUR
balances. As such, in ICE Clear Europe's view, the amendments are
consistent with the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and
other charges among its Clearing Members and other market participants,
within the meaning of Section 17A(b)(3)(D) of the Act.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1.
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(D).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(D).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed amendments are also consistent with the requirements
of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act \9\ which requires, among other
things, that ``[t]he rules of a clearing agency [. . .] are not
designed to permit unfair discrimination in the admission of
participants or among participants in the use of the clearing agency''.
As noted above, the EUR spread, as proposed to be amended, would apply
on a currency level and would apply to all Clearing Members. The
amendments would not otherwise change the ability of Clearing Members
to post EUR in satisfaction of their obligations. As a result, the
amendments would not result in any unfair discrimination among Clearing
Members in their use of the Clearing House, within the meaning of
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78q-1(b)(3)(F).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Clearing Agency's Statement on Burden on Competition

    ICE Clear Europe does not believe the proposed rule changes would
have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purpose of the Act. Although ICE
Clear Europe is revising a certain spread applied to the IDR, as set
forth herein, it believes such changes are appropriate

to align the costs and benefits of using EUR with otherwise available
market rates for EUR balances, thereby facilitating the Clearing
House's ability to maintain EUR balances for liquidity management
purposes. Further, as discussed above, the change to the spread would
be applied equally to all Clearing Members who deposit cash balances in
EUR. ICE Clear Europe does not believe that the amendments would
adversely affect the ability of such Clearing Members or other market
participants generally to access clearing services. Further, ICE Clear
Europe believes that the amendments would not otherwise affect
competition among Clearing Members, adversely affect the market for
clearing services or limit market participants' choices for obtaining
clearing services. As a result, ICE Clear Europe does not believe the
amendments would have any impact or impose any burden on competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Act.

(C) Clearing Agency's Statement on Comments on the Proposed Rule Change
Received From Members, Participants or Others

    Written comments relating to the proposed amendments have not been
solicited or received by ICE Clear Europe. ICE Clear Europe will notify
the Commission of any comments received with respect to the proposed
rule change.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \11\ and paragraph (f)(2) of Rule 19b-4 \12\
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-ICEEU-2022-021 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-ICEEU-2022-021. 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 such filings will also be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of ICE Clear Europe and on ICE
Clear Europe's website at https://www.theice.com/clear-europe/regulation.
    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-ICEEU-2022-021 and should be
submitted on or before November 30, 2022.

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

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

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-24414 Filed 11-8-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2565 PLYMOUTH ROAD

ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN 48105-2498

OFFICE OF

AIR AND RADIATION

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:	Heavy-Duty Hybrid Onboard Diagnostics

FROM:		Amy Kopin

TO:		The Docket

DATE:		July 15, 2011

	On June 8th, 2011 we held a conference call with the Eaton to discuss
concerns raised by Eaton regarding heavy-duty onboard diagnostic (OBD)
requirements and timing. Specifically, they have requested a delay of
the application of HD OBD requirements for hybrid applications until
2020.  Concerns were raised concerns during the comment period for the
heavy-duty greenhouse gas notice of proposed rulemaking that heavy-duty
hybrid applications may not be able to meet the 2013 heavy-duty OBD
regulations that were published in the 2009 OBD Final Rulemaking.,
Attendees from the EPA and Eaton are shown in the table below.

 Attendee 	Affiliation

Cleophas Jackson 	EPA – Compliance and Innovative Strategies Division

Anthony Neam 	EPA – Assessment and Standards Division

Amy Kopin 	EPA – Assessment and Standards Division

Ian McKenzie	Eaton

 U.S. EPA, NHTSA, and DOT, “Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and Fuel
Efficiency Standards for Medium- and Heavy-Duty Engines and Vehicles,”
republished December 29, 2010.  Available here:
http://origin.www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-12-29/html/2010-32726.htm

 U.S. EPA, “Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles and New
Motor Vehicles Engines; Final Rule Regulations Requiring Onboard
Diagnostic Systems on 2010 and Later Heavy-Duty Engines Used in Highway
Applications Over 14,000 Pounds; Revisions to Onboard Diagnostic
Requirements for Diesel Highway Heavy-Duty Vehicles Under 14,000
Pounds,” published February 24, 2009.  Available here:
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/im/obd/regtech/hd-obd-frm-02-24-09-notice-7
4-fr-8310.pdf