[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 60 (Thursday, March 28, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18849-18853]
[FR Doc No: 2013-06905]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0713; FRL-9794-5]

Disapproval of Implementation Plan Revisions; State of
California; South Coast VMT Emissions Offset Demonstrations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to withdraw its previous approvals
of state implementation plan revisions submitted by the State of
California to meet the vehicle-miles-traveled emissions offset
requirement under the Clean Air Act for the Los Angeles-South Coast Air
Basin 1-hour and 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas. EPA is also taking
final action to disapprove the same plan revisions. EPA is finalizing
the withdrawal and disapproval actions in response to a remand by the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Association of Irritated Residents v.
EPA. The effect of this action is to trigger deadlines by which new
plan revisions meeting the applicable requirements must be submitted by
the State of California and approved by EPA to avoid sanctions and to
avoid an obligation on EPA to promulgate a federal implementation plan.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective on April 29, 2013.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0713 for this
action. The index to the docket for this action is available
electronically at http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California, 94105-3901.
While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some
information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location
(e.g., copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly available at
either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please
schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wienke Tax, Air Planning Office, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, Mailcode AIR-2, 75 Hawthorne
Street, San Francisco, California 94105-3901,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Summary of Today's Action
II. Background
III. Response to Public Comments
IV. Final Action and Consequences of Final Disapproval
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Summary of Today's Action

    EPA is taking final action to withdraw our previous approvals of
revisions to the state implementation plan (SIP) submitted by the State
of California to demonstrate compliance with the vehicle miles traveled
(VMT) emissions offset requirement under Clean Air Act (CAA) section
182(d)(1)(A) with respect to the 1-hour and 8-hour ozone standard in
the South Coast nonattainment area. EPA is taking this action in
response to a decision by the Ninth Circuit in Association of Irritated
Residents v. EPA. Under section 110(k) of the CAA, we are also taking
final action to disapprove these same plan elements because they
reflect an approach to showing compliance with section 182(d)(1)(A)
that was rejected by the Ninth Circuit.
    Subject to our regulations at 40 CFR 52.31, our disapproval of the
SIP revisions will trigger the new source review (NSR) offset sanction
in CAA section 179(b)(2) and the highway funding sanction under CAA
section 179(b)(1) in the South Coast ozone nonattainment area 18
months, and 24 months, respectively, after the effective date of this
action unless we take final action approving SIP revisions meeting the
relevant requirements of the CAA

prior to the time the sanctions would take effect.\1\ In addition to
the sanctions, CAA section 110(c) provides that EPA must promulgate a
federal implementation plan (FIP) addressing the deficiency that is the
basis for this disapproval two years after the effective date of the
disapproval unless we have approved a revised SIP before that date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Under 40 CFR 52.31(d), the application of sanctions shall be
deferred or stayed (depending on timing) if the State submits a new
SIP that corrects the SIP deficiency and EPA proposes approval of
that SIP and issues an interim final determination that the State
has corrected the deficiency. This deferral or stay will continue
unless and until EPA proposes to or takes final action to instead
disapprove the new SIP, in which case sanctions would apply
depending on the timing of EPA's action with respect to the relevant
18-month and 24-month periods.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background

    On September 19, 2012 (77 FR 58067), we proposed the same actions
that we are finalizing today. In our proposed rule, we reviewed the
regulatory and SIP submittal history of the South Coast Air Basin 1-
hour and 8-hour nonattainment areas with respect to the VMT emissions
offset requirement under CAA section 182(d)(1)(A), the related EPA
actions, and the ensuing litigation and court decision. We provide a
summary of that discussion herein. For a more detailed discussion,
please see our September 19, 2012 proposed rule at pages 58068-58070.
    The CAA requires EPA to promulgate national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS or ``standards'') for certain pervasive air pollutants
to protect public health and welfare with an adequate margin of safety.
In 1979, EPA promulgated an ozone NAAQS of 0.12 parts per million
(ppm), averaged over a 1-hour period. Under the CAA, EPA must also
designate areas as attainment, nonattainment, or unclassifiable for the
NAAQS, and States with designated nonattainment areas must submit
revisions to their SIPs that provide for, among other things,
attainment of the standards within certain prescribed periods.
    The control requirements and date by which attainment of the one-
hour ozone standard was to be achieved varied with an area's
classification. Under the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, EPA
designated the Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin Area (``South Coast'')
\2\ as ``extreme'' nonattainment for the 1-hour ozone standard, with an
attainment date no later than November 15, 2010. See 56 FR 56694
(November 6, 1991). Extreme areas were subject to the most stringent
planning requirements and were provided the most time to attain the
standard. The various ozone planning requirements to which Extreme
ozone nonattainment areas were subject are set forth in section 172(c)
and section 182(a)-(e) of the CAA. Of particular importance for the
purposes of this action, section 182(d)(1)(A) requires the following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The South Coast includes Orange County, the southwestern
two-thirds of Los Angeles County, southwestern San Bernardino
County, and western Riverside County (see 40 CFR 81.305).

    Within 2 years after November 15, 1992, the State shall submit a
revision that identifies and adopts specific enforceable
transportation control strategies and transportation control
measures to offset any growth in emissions from growth in vehicle
miles traveled or numbers of vehicle trips in such area and to
attain reduction in motor vehicle emissions as necessary, in
combination with other emission reduction requirements of this
subpart, to comply with the requirements of subsection (b)(2)(B) and
(c)(2)(B) of this section (pertaining to periodic emissions
reduction requirements). The State shall consider measures specified
in section 7408(f) of this title, and choose from among and
implement such measures as necessary to demonstrate attainment with
the national ambient air quality standards; in considering such
measures, the State should ensure adequate access to downtown, other
commercial, and residential areas and should avoid measures that
increase or relocate emissions and congestion rather than reduce
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
them.''

    As we discussed in our proposed rule, EPA believes that it is
appropriate to treat the three required elements of section
182(d)(1)(A) (i.e., offsetting emissions growth, attainment of the
reasonable further progress (RFP) reduction, and attainment of the
ozone NAAQS) as separable. As to the first element of CAA section
182(d)(1)(A) (i.e., offsetting emissions growth), EPA has historically
interpreted this CAA provision to allow areas to meet the requirement
by demonstrating that emissions from motor vehicles decline each year
through the attainment year. See 57 FR 13498, at 13521-15323 (April 16,
1992). The proposed rule and this final rule relate only to the first
element of section 182(d)(1)(A) (i.e., offsetting emissions growth).
Herein, we refer to this element as the VMT emissions offset
requirement.
    In 1997, EPA replaced the 1-hour ozone standard with an 8-hour
ozone standard of 0.08 ppm. See 62 FR 38856 (July 18, 1997).\3\ EPA's
anti-backsliding rules governing the transition from the 1-hour ozone
standard to the 8-hour ozone standard revoked the 1-hour ozone standard
effective June 2005 but also carried forward most of the SIP
requirements, which had applied to an area by virtue of its 1-hour
ozone classification, to areas designated as nonattainment for the 8-
hour ozone standard. See 69 FR 23951 (April 30, 2004); 40 CFR
51.905(a)(1); and 40 CFR 51.900(f). The VMT emission offset requirement
is one of the requirements carried forward; thus, the South Coast,
which is designated nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard,
remains subject to the VMT emissions offset requirement for the 1-hour
ozone standard notwithstanding the revocation of that standard in 2005.
Moreover, the South Coast is subject to the VMT emissions offset
requirement for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard itself by virtue of its
classification, first as ``Severe-17,'' and now as ``Extreme,'' for the
1997 ozone standard. See 69 FR 23858 (April 30, 2004); 70 FR 71612
(November 29, 2005); 75 FR 24409 (May 5, 2010); and 40 CFR 51.902(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ In 2008, EPA tightened the 8-hour ozone NAAQS to 0.075 ppm,
see 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008). Today's action relates only to SIP
requirements arising from the classifications and designations of
the South Coast with respect to the 1979 1-hour ozone and 1997 8-
hour ozone standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2008, to comply with the VMT emissions offset requirement for
the 1-hour ozone standard, the South Coast Air Quality Management
District (SCAQMD) submitted a demonstration showing decreases in
aggregate year-over-year motor vehicle emissions in the South Coast
from a base year through the applicable attainment year (2010).\4\ The
following year, EPA approved the South Coast 1-hour ozone VMT emissions
offset demonstration as meeting the VMT emissions offset requirement.
See 74 FR 10176 (March 10, 2009). The State of California also
submitted a VMT emissions offset demonstration for the South Coast for
the 8-hour ozone standard, and it too demonstrated compliance through a
showing of aggregate year-over-year motor vehicle emissions decreases
from a base year (2002) through the applicable attainment year
(2024).\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Letter from Elaine Chang, Deputy Executive Officer, South
Coast Air Quality Management District, dated September 10, 2008,
approved at 40 CFR 52.220(c)(339)(ii)(B)(2).
    \5\ See pages 6-23 and 6-27 (table 6-12) of the Final 2007 Air
Quality Management Plan, June 2007, prepared by the South Coast Air
Quality Management District.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Meanwhile, as explained in more detail in our September 19, 2012
proposed rule, EPA's approval of the SCAQMD's VMT emissions offset
demonstration for the 1-hour ozone standard was challenged in the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals, and in 2011, the court ruled against EPA,
determining that EPA incorrectly interpreted the statutory phrase
``growth in emissions'' in section 182(d)(1)(A) as

meaning a growth in ``aggregate motor vehicle emissions.'' In other
words, the court ruled that additional transportation control
strategies and measures are required whenever vehicle emissions are
projected to be higher than they would have been had vehicle miles
traveled not increased, even when aggregate vehicle emissions are
actually decreasing. Association of Irritated Residents v. EPA, 632
F.3d 584, at 596-597 (9th Cir. 2011), reprinted as amended on January
27, 2012, 686 F.3d 668, further amended February 13, 2012
(``Association of Irritated Residents v. EPA'').
    Based on this reasoning, the court remanded the approval of the
South Coast VMT emissions offset demonstration for the 1-hour ozone
standard back to EPA for further proceedings consistent with the
opinion. In May 2011, EPA filed a petition for panel rehearing
requesting the court to reconsider its decision as to the VMT emissions
offset requirement. In January 2012, the court denied the request and
issued the mandate, but prior to the court's mandate, EPA took final
action to approve the South Coast VMT emissions offset demonstration
for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard as part of a larger plan approval
action. See 77 FR 12674 (March 1, 2012). Shortly thereafter, several
environmental and community groups filed a lawsuit in the Ninth Circuit
challenging EPA's approval of that larger plan (i.e., the South Coast
1997 8-hour ozone plan). Communities for a Better Environment, et al.
v. EPA, No. 12-71340.
    In light of the remand in the Association of Irritated Residents v.
EPA case and the current court challenge to EPA's approval of the same
SIP element for the 8-hour ozone standard, EPA proposed to withdraw the
Agency's previous approvals of the VMT emissions offset demonstrations
submitted by the State of California to comply with the VMT emissions
offset requirement under CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) for the 1-hour and
the 1997 8-hour ozone standards in the South Coast. EPA also proposed
to disapprove those same submittals.
    EPA proposed the withdrawals of previous approvals and the
disapprovals because the Ninth Circuit rejected EPA's long-standing
interpretation of the first element of section 182(d)(1)(A) that states
could demonstrate compliance with the VMT emissions offset requirement
through submittal of aggregate motor vehicle emissions estimates
showing year-over-year declines in such emissions and because the
submitted demonstrations and related EPA approvals were predicated on
the long-standing interpretation that was rejected by the court.
Specifically, as explained in our September 19, 2012 proposed rule, we
found that the submitted VMT emissions offset demonstrations are not
consistent with the court's ruling on the requirements of section
182(d)(1)(A) because they fail to identify, compared to a baseline
assuming no VMT growth, the level of increased emissions resulting
solely from VMT growth and to show how such increased emissions have
been offset through adoption and implementation of transportation
control strategies and transportation control measures. See the
proposed rule at page 58070.

III. Response to Public Comments

    Publication of our September 19, 2012 proposed rule in the Federal
Register started a 30-day public comment period which ended on October
19, 2012. We received two comment letters, one from the California Air
Resources Board (CARB), and one from the SCAQMD. Neither comment letter
objects to our proposed withdrawal or disapproval actions. Rather, both
comment letters address aspects of a non-binding and non-final guidance
memorandum \6\ issued by EPA in response to the court's decision on the
section 182(d)(1)(A) VMT emissions offset requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Karl Simon, Director, Transportation and Climate Division,
EPA Office of Transportation and Air Quality, to Carl Edlund and
Deborah Jordan, ``Guidance on Implementing Clean Air Act Section
182(d)(1)(A): Transportation Control Measures and Transportation
Control Strategies to Offset Growth in Emissions Due to Growth in
Vehicle Miles Travelled,'' August 30, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA appreciates the comments from CARB and the SCAQMD on the
guidance. However, the comments are beyond the scope of this
rulemaking, and EPA is not here taking any final action to respond to
these comments or with respect to the non-final and non-binding
guidance that they address. This final action simply withdraws EPA's
previous approvals of the VMT emissions offset demonstrations for the
South Coast with respect to the 1-hour and 8-hour ozone NAAQS and
disapproves the same because they are based on a rationale for
compliance with section 182(d)(1)(A) that was rejected by the Ninth
Circuit in Association of Irritated Residents v. EPA. EPA is not
relying on the non-final and non-binding section 182(d)(1)(A) guidance
memorandum for today's final action. If a future SIP submission
implements the guidance, EPA will take separate regulatory final action
to address that SIP and its satisfaction of section 182(d)(1)(A).
Lastly, EPA appreciates CARB's and SCAQMD's willingness to respond
promptly to the court decision and this final action, and to submit
revisions to the South Coast portion of the California SIP to address
the section 182(d)(1)(A) VMT emissions offset requirement for the 1-
hour and 8-hour ozone standards.

IV. Final Action and Consequences of Final Disapproval

    For the reasons provided in the proposed rule and summarized
herein, EPA is taking final action to withdraw our previous approvals
of SIP revisions submitted by the State of California to demonstrate
compliance with the VMT emissions offset requirement under CAA section
182(d)(1)(A) with respect to the 1-hour and 8-hour ozone standards in
the South Coast nonattainment area. EPA is taking this action in
response to a decision of the Ninth Circuit in Association of Irritated
Residents v. EPA. Under section 110(k), EPA is also taking final action
to disapprove those same submittals because they reflect an approach to
showing compliance with section 182(d)(1)(A) that was rejected by the
court as inconsistent with the CAA section 182(d)(1)(A) VMT emissions
offset requirement.
    Pursuant to CAA section 179(a), our disapproval of the SIP
revisions will trigger the NSR offset sanction in CAA section 179(b)(2)
and the highway funding sanction under CAA section 179(b)(1) in the
South Coast ozone nonattainment area 18 months, and 24 months,
respectively, after the effective date of this action unless we take
final action approving SIP revisions meeting the relevant requirements
of the CAA prior to the time the sanctions would take effect. If we
propose approval of a SIP revision meeting the relevant requirements of
the CAA and determine at that time that it is more likely than not the
deficiency has been corrected, sanctions will be deferred. See 40 CFR
52.31 which sets forth when sanctions apply and when they may be
stopped or deferred.
    In addition to the sanctions, CAA section 110(c) provides that EPA
must promulgate a FIP addressing the deficiency that is the basis for
this disapproval action two years after the effective date of the
disapproval unless we have approved a revised SIP before that date.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory
Planning and Review.''

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.
Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

C. Regulatory Reduction Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements 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 not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions.
    This rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities because SIP approvals or SIP disapprovals
under section 110 of the Clean Air Act do not create any new
requirements but simply approve or disapprove requirements that the
State is already imposing. Therefore, because the withdrawal of
previous approvals of certain SIP revisions, and disapproval of the
same, do not create any new requirements, I certify that this action
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State
relationship under the Clean Air Act, preparation of a flexibility
analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic
reasonableness of State action. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base
its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co., v.
U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to
the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan
for informing and advising any small governments that may be
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    EPA has determined that this action does not include a Federal
mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to
either State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the
private sector. This Federal action withdraws previous approvals of
certain pre-existing SIP elements and disapproves the same, and imposes
no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local,
or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this
action.

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces
Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the
Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 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 Executive Order 13132, EPA 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 EPA
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation
that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the
Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
    This rule 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, because it
merely withdraws previous approvals of certain SIP revisions
implementing a Federal standard and disapproves the same, and does not
alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, the
requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this
rule.

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 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.'' This rule does not have
tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not
have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the
relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this rule.

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

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or
safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of
the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This
rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045, because it withdraws
previous approvals of certain SIP revisions implementing a Federal
standard and disapproves the same.

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect 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. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing
technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with
NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards''
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing

programs and policies unless doing so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical.
    EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's
action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to
the use of VCS.

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

    Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental
justice in this rulemaking. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is
to approve or disapprove state choices, based on the criteria of the
Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely withdraws previous
approvals of certain SIP revisions implementing a Federal standard and
disapproves the same under section 110 of the Clean Air Act and will
not in-and-of itself create any new requirements. Accordingly, it does
not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects,
using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive
Order 12898.

K. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).

L. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 28, 2013. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: March 14, 2013.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX.

    Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart F--California

Sec.  52.220  [Amended]

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by removing and reserving paragraph
(c)(339)(ii)(B)(2).

[FR Doc. 2013-06905 Filed 3-27-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 239 (Wednesday, December 12, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 74043-74044]
[FR Doc No: 2012-29930]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68368; File No. SR-ODD-2012-02]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Options Clearing Corporation;
Order Granting Approval of Accelerated Delivery of Supplement to the
Options Disclosure Document Reflecting Certain Changes to Disclosure
Regarding Adjustments for Cash Dividends and Distributions in Respect
of Options Overlying Less than 100 Shares To Accommodate the Trading of
Mini Options

December 6, 2012.
    On October 2, 2012, The Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'')
submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''),
pursuant to Rule 9b-1 under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ five preliminary copies of a supplement (``November 2012
Supplement'') to amend the options disclosure document (``ODD'') to
reflect certain changes to disclosure regarding adjustments for cash
dividends and distributions in respect of options overlying less than
100 shares to accommodate the trading of mini options.\2\ On November
14, 2012, the OCC submitted to the Commission definitive copies of the
November 2012 Supplement.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 17 CFR 240.9b-1.
    \2\ See letter from Jean M. Cawley, Senior Vice President,
Deputy General Counsel and Chief Compliance Officer, OCC, to Sharon
Lawson, Senior Special Counsel, Division of Trading and Markets
(``Division''), Commission, dated October 1, 2012.
    \3\ See letter from Jean M. Cawley, Senior Vice President,
Deputy General Counsel and Chief Compliance Officer, OCC, to Sharon
Lawson, Senior Special Counsel, Division, Commission, dated November
9, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ODD currently contains general disclosures on the
characteristics and risks of trading standardized options. In September
2012, the Commission approved proposed rule changes that permitted the
International Securities Exchange, LLC and NYSE Arca, Inc. to list and
trade mini options (``Mini Options'') overlying 10 shares of SPDR S&P
500 ETF, Apple Inc., SPDR Gold Trust, Google Inc., and Amazon.com,
Inc.\4\ Subsequently, NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC filed a proposed rule change
to list and trade these Mini Options.\5\ The current proposed November
2012 Supplement amends the ODD disclosure to accommodate adjustments
for cash dividends and distributions in respect of options overlying
less than 100 shares.\6\ This change will help to ensure that Mini
Options are adjusted when the corresponding standard-sized options are
adjusted. Specifically, the November 2012 Supplement would make clear
that no adjustment will normally be made for any cash dividend or
distribution that amounts to less than $0.125 per underlying share. In
addition, for contracts originally listed with a unit of trading larger
than 100 shares, the November 2012 Supplement will continue to provide
that no adjustment normally would be made for any cash dividend or
distribution that amounts to less than $12.50 per contract. The
proposed supplement is intended to be read in conjunction with the more
general ODD, which discusses the characteristics and risks of options
generally.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67948 (September 28,
2012), 77 FR 60735 (October 4, 2012) (SR-NYSEArca-2012-64 and SR-
ISE-2012-58).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68132 (November 1,
2012), 77 FR 66904 (November 7, 2012) (SR-Phlx-2012-126) (notice of
filing and immediate effectiveness of proposed rule change to list
and trade Mini Options).
    \6\ The Commission recently approved a proposed rule change by
the OCC to make similar changes to its By-Laws. See Securities
Exchange Act Release Nos. 67917 (September 24, 2012), 77 FR 59687
(September 28, 2012) (``OCC Notice'') and 68104 (October 25, 2012),
77 FR 65917 (October 31, 2012) (SR-OCC-2012-16). In its filing, the
OCC stated that without the By-Law amendments, some cash dividends
or distributions that would exceed the adjustment threshold in the
case of standard options would not exceed the adjustment threshold
in the case of a Mini Option because the per contract distribution
on the Mini Option would be only \1/10\th of the distribution on the
standard option and the adjustment threshold was stated on a per
contract basis rather than a per share basis. Therefore, the OCC
amended, with Commission approval, the adjustment threshold from
$12.50 per contract to $0.125 per share. In its filing, the OCC also
stated that it did not intend for the rule change to affect options
contracts that were originally listed with units of trading in
excess of 100 shares.
    \7\ The Commission notes that the options markets must continue
to ensure that the ODD is in compliance with the requirements of
Rule 9b-1(b)(2)(i) under the Act, 17 CFR 240.9b-1(b)(2)(i),
including when changes regarding Mini Options are made in the
future. Any future changes to the rules of the options markets
concerning Mini Options would need to be submitted to the Commission
under Section 19(b) of the Act. 15 U.S.C. 78s(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 9b-1(b)(2)(i) under the Act \8\ provides that an options
market must file five copies of an amendment or supplement to the ODD
with the Commission at least 30 days prior to the date definitive
copies are furnished to customers, unless the Commission determines
otherwise, having due regard to the adequacy of the information
disclosed and the public interest and protection of investors.\9\ In
addition, five copies of the definitive ODD, as amended or
supplemented,

must be filed with the Commission not later than the date the amendment
or supplement, or the amended ODD, is furnished to customers. The
Commission has reviewed the proposed November 2012 Supplement, and the
amendments to the ODD contained therein, and finds that, having due
regard to the adequacy of the information disclosed and the public
interest and protection of investors, the supplement may be furnished
to customers as of the date of this order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 17 CFR 240.9b-1(b)(2)(i).
    \9\ This provision permits the Commission to shorten or lengthen
the period of time which must elapse before definitive copies may be
furnished to customers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Rule 9b-1 under the Act,\10\
that definitive copies of the November 2012 Supplement to the ODD (SR-
ODD-2012-02), reflecting changes to disclosure regarding adjustments
for cash dividends and distributions in respect of options overlying
less than 100 shares, may be furnished to customers as of the date of
this order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 240.9b-1.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(39).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-29930 Filed 12-11-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: May 15, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 93)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 22821]
[DOCID:fr15my09-4]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2008-1139; Airspace Docket No. 08-ASW-23]

Amendment of Class E Airspace; Coleman, TX

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends Class E airspace at Coleman, TX. Additional
controlled airspace is necessary to accommodate Area Navigation (RNAV)
Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAP) at Coleman Municipal
Airport, Coleman, TX. The FAA is taking this action to enhance the
safety and management of Instrument Flight Rule (IFR) operations at
Coleman Municipal Airport.

DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC, July 2, 2009. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR Part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Enander, Central Service Center,
Operations Support Group, Federal Aviation Administration, Southwest
Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort Worth, TX 76193-0530; telephone (817)
321-7716.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On February 24, 2009, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking to amend Class E airspace at Coleman, TX,
adding additional controlled airspace at Coleman Municipal Airport,
Coleman, TX (74 FR 8219, Docket No. FAA-2008-1139). Interested parties
were invited to participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting
written comments on the proposal to the FAA. No comments were received.
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA
Order 7400.9S signed October 3, 2008, and effective October 31, 2008,
which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace
designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in
the Order.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
Part 71 by amending Class E airspace at Coleman, TX, adding additional
controlled airspace at Coleman Municipal Airport, Coleman, TX, for the
safety and management of IFR operations.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule''
under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes
the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation
Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority.
This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the
FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it adds additional controlled airspace at Coleman Municipal Airport,
Coleman, TX.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration
amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854,
24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9S, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, signed October 3, 2008, and effective October 31,
2008, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas extending upward from 700
feet or more above the surface.

* * * * *

ASW TX E5 Coleman, TX [Amended]

Coleman Municipal Airport, TX
    (Lat. 31[deg]50'32'' N., long. 99[deg]24'14'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within an 8-mile radius of Coleman Municipal Airport.
* * * * *

    Issued in Fort Worth, TX, on April 22, 2009.
Roger M. Trevino,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. E9-11259 Filed 5-14-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 23 (Friday, February 3, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7382-7384]
[FR Doc No: 2023-02284]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2023-0058; FRL-10634-01-R5]

Air Plan Approval; Michigan; Clean Data Determination for the
Detroit Area for the 2015 Ozone Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
determine under the Clean Air Act (CAA) that the Detroit, Michigan
nonattainment area (hereafter also referred to, respectively, as the
``Detroit area'' or ``area'') has attained the 2015 ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS or standard). This determination
is based upon complete, quality-assured, and certified ambient air
monitoring data for the 2020-2022 design period showing that the area
achieved attainment of the 2015 ozone NAAQS. EPA also proposes to take
final agency action on an exceptional events request submitted by the
Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy (EGLE) on
January 26, 2023, and concurred on by EPA on January 30, 2023. As a
result of these determinations, EPA is proposing to suspend the
requirements for the area to submit attainment demonstrations and
associated Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM), Reasonable
Further Progress (RFP) plans, contingency measures for failure to
attain or make reasonable progress, and other planning State
Implementation Plans (SIPs) related to attainment of the 2015 ozone
NAAQS, for as long as the area continues to attain the 2015 ozone
NAAQS. This action does not constitute a redesignation of the area to
attainment of the 2015 ozone NAAQS, and the area remains designated
nonattainment until such time as EPA determines that the area meets the
CAA requirements for redesignation to attainment and takes action to
redesignate the area.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 6, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2023-0058 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
[email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow
the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Svingen, Environmental Engineer,
Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-
18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected]. The EPA Region 5 office is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays and
facility closures due to COVID-19.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

I. Background

    EPA has determined that ground-level ozone is detrimental to human
health. On October 1, 2015, EPA promulgated a revised 8-hour ozone
NAAQS of 0.070 parts per million (ppm). See 80 FR 65292 (October 26,
2015). Under EPA's regulations at 40 CFR part 50, the 2015 ozone NAAQS
is attained in an area when the 3-year average of the annual fourth
highest daily maximum 8-hour average concentration is equal to or less
than 0.070 ppm, when truncated after the thousandth decimal place, at
all of the ozone monitoring sites in the area. See 40 CFR 50.19 and
appendix U to 40 CFR part 50.
    Upon promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, section 107(d)(1)(B)
of the CAA requires EPA to designate as nonattainment any areas that
are violating the NAAQS, based on the most recent three years of
quality-assured ozone monitoring data. On August 3, 2018, EPA
designated the Detroit area, consisting of Livingston, Macomb, Monroe,
Oakland, St. Clair, Washtenaw, and Wayne Counties, as a Marginal
nonattainment area for the 2015 ozone NAAQS (83 FR 25776). On January
26, 2023, the Regional Administrator of EPA Region 5 signed a final
rulemaking determining, based on 2018-2020 monitoring data, that the
Detroit area had failed to attain by its Marginal attainment date of
August 3, 2021, and reclassifying the area to Moderate.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA previously proposed to approve a January 3, 2022,
request by EGLE to redesignate the Detroit area to attainment of the
2015 ozone NAAQS based on 2019-2021 monitoring data showing
attainment of the 2015 ozone NAAQS (87 FR 14210). EPA's proposed
approval was published on March 14, 2022, and the comment period
closed on April 27, 2022. In this proposed action, EPA is not taking
further action to finalize the proposed redesignation. EPA will
respond to comments received during the comment period for the
proposed redesignation should EPA take final action on EGLE's
January 3, 2022, request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Exceptional Events Demonstration

    Congress has recognized that it may not be appropriate for EPA to
use certain monitoring data collected by the ambient air quality
monitoring network and maintained in EPA's Air Quality System (AQS)
database in certain regulatory determinations. Thus, in 2005, Congress
provided the statutory authority for the exclusion of data influenced
by ``exceptional events'' meeting specific criteria by adding section
319(b) to the CAA.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Under CAA section 319(b), an exceptional event means an
event that (i) affects air quality; (ii) is not reasonably
controllable or preventable; (iii) is an event caused by human
activity that is unlikely to recur at a particular location or a
natural event; and (iv) is determined by EPA under the process
established in regulations promulgated by EPA in accordance with
section 319(b)(2) to be an exceptional event. For the purposes of
section 319(b), an exceptional event does not include (i) stagnation
of air masses or meteorological inversions; (ii) a meteorological
event involving high temperatures or lack of precipitation; or (iii)
air pollution relating to source noncompliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To implement this 2005 CAA amendment, on March 22, 2007, EPA
promulgated the 2007 Exceptional Events Rule (72 FR 13560). The 2007
Exceptional Events Rule created a regulatory process codified at 40 CFR
parts 50 and 51 (Sec. Sec.  50.1, 50.14, and 51.930). These regulatory
sections, which superseded EPA's previous guidance on handling data
influenced by events, contain definitions, procedural requirements,
requirements for air agency demonstrations, criteria for EPA's approval
of the exclusion of

event-affected air quality data from the data set used for regulatory
decisions, and requirements for air agencies to take appropriate and
reasonable actions to protect public health from exceedances or
violations of the NAAQS. On October 3, 2016, EPA promulgated a
comprehensive revision to the 2007 Exceptional Events Rule (81 FR
68216). The 2016 Exceptional Events Rule revision included the
requirement that, if a state demonstrates that emissions from a
wildfire smoke event caused a specific air pollution concentration in
excess of the NAAQS at a particular air quality monitoring location and
otherwise satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 50.14, EPA must exclude
that data from use in determinations of exceedances and violations.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 40 CFR 50.14(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CAA provides for the exclusion of air quality monitoring data
from design value calculations when there are NAAQS exceedances caused
by events, such as wildfires, that meet the criteria for an exceptional
event identified in EPA's Exceptional Events Rule at 40 CFR 50.1,
50.14, and 51.930. For the purposes of this proposed action, on January
26, 2023, EGLE submitted an exceptional events demonstration to show
that ozone concentrations recorded at the Wayne County monitor at East
7 Mile with Site ID 26-163-0019 on June 24 and 25, 2022, were
influenced by wildfires. EPA concurred on this request on January 30,
2023.
    EPA found that Michigan's demonstration met the Exceptional Events
Rule criteria and determined that these wildfire events had regulatory
significance for purposes of calculating the area's most recent design
value to demonstrate the area is attaining the standard in order to
make a clean data determination for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. As such, EPA
proposes to take final regulatory action on the concurred dates, as
detailed in the docket, as exceptional events to be removed from the
data set used for regulatory purposes. For this proposed action, EPA
will rely on the calculated values that exclude the event-influenced
data for the purpose of demonstrating attainment of the 2015 ozone
NAAQS. Further details on Michigan's analyses and EPA's concurrence can
be found in the docket for this regulatory action.
    While EPA has concurred with Michigan's request to exclude event-
influenced air quality monitoring data from regulatory decisions, these
regulatory actions require EPA to provide an opportunity for public
comment on the claimed exceptional events and all supporting data prior
to EPA taking final agency action. This proposed action provides the
public with an opportunity to comment on the claimed exceptional
events, all supporting documents and EPA's concurrence with Michigan's
request.

III. Clean Data Determination

    Following enactment of the CAA Amendments of 1990, EPA discussed
its interpretation of the requirements for implementing the NAAQS in
the General Preamble for the Implementation of title I of the CAA
Amendments of 1990 (General Preamble), 57 FR 13498, 13564 (April 16,
1992). On November 29, 1995, EPA set forth what has become known as its
``Clean Data Policy'' for the 1-hour ozone NAAQS (70 FR 71612). Under
the Clean Data Policy, for a nonattainment area that can demonstrate
attainment of the standard before implementing CAA nonattainment
measures, EPA interprets the requirements of the CAA that are
specifically designed to help an area achieve attainment, such as the
requirements for such area to submit attainment demonstrations and
associated RACM, RFP plans, contingency measures for failure to attain
or make reasonable progress, and other planning SIPs related to
attainment of the ozone NAAQS, to be suspended for as long as air
quality continues to meet the standard. Such a determination of
attainment under the Clean Data Policy is known informally as a clean
data determination. On December 6, 2018, in the final rule updating
implementing regulations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, EPA codified this
policy at 40 CFR 51.1318 (83 FR 62998).
    An area is attaining the 2015 ozone NAAQS if it meets the 2015
ozone NAAQS based on three complete, consecutive calendar years of
quality-assured air quality data for all monitoring sites in the area.
To attain the 2015 ozone NAAQS, the 3-year average of the annual
fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentrations (ozone
design values) at each monitor must not exceed 0.070 ppm. The air
quality data must be collected and quality-assured in accordance with
40 CFR part 58 and recorded in AQS. Ambient air quality monitoring data
for the 3-year period must also meet data completeness requirements. An
ozone design value is valid if daily maximum 8-hour average
concentrations are available for at least 90% of the days within the
ozone monitoring seasons,\4\ on average, for the 3-year period, with a
minimum data completeness of 75% during the ozone monitoring season of
any year during the 3-year period. See section 4 of appendix U to 40
CFR part 50.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The ozone season is defined by state in 40 CFR part 58,
appendix D. The ozone season for Michigan is March-October. See 80
FR 65292, 65466-67 (October 26, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has reviewed the available ozone monitoring data from EGLE's
monitoring sites in the Detroit area for the 2020-2022 period. These
data have been quality assured, are recorded in the AQS, and were
certified in advance of EPA's publication of this proposal. These data
demonstrate that the Detroit area is attaining the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
The annual fourth-highest 8-hour ozone concentrations and the 3-year
average of these concentrations (monitoring site ozone design values)
for all monitoring sites are summarized in Table 1.

   Table 1--Annual Fourth-Highest Daily Maximum 8-Hour Ozone Concentrations and 3-Year Average of the Fourth-
                     Highest Daily Maximum 8-Hour Ozone Concentrations for the Detroit Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  2020  4th high  2021  4th high  2022  4th high     2020-2022
             County                   Monitor          (ppm)           (ppm)           (ppm)      average  (ppm)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Macomb..........................     26-099-0009           0.074           0.068           0.066           0.069
                                     26-099-1003           0.070           0.067           0.068           0.068
Oakland.........................     26-125-0001           0.074           0.068           0.065           0.069
St. Clair.......................     26-147-0005           0.069           0.072           0.066           0.069
Washtenaw.......................     26-161-0008           0.072           0.066           0.067           0.068
                                     26-161-9991           0.067           0.063           0.066           0.065
Wayne...........................     26-163-0001           0.070           0.069           0.071           0.070

                                     26-163-0019           0.073           0.069           0.067           0.069
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Detroit area's 3-year ozone design value for 2020-2022 is 0.070
ppm,\5\ which meets the 2015 ozone NAAQS. Therefore, in this action,
EPA proposes to find that the Detroit area is attaining the 2015 ozone
NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The monitor ozone design value for the monitor with the
highest 3-year averaged concentration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA will not take final action to determine that the Detroit area
is attaining the NAAQS if the design value of a monitoring site in the
area violates the NAAQS prior to final approval of the clean data
determination.
    Should this action be finalized, the requirements for EGLE to
submit attainment demonstrations and associated RACM, RFP plans,
contingency measures for failure to attain or make reasonable progress,
and other planning SIPs related to attainment of the 2015 ozone NAAQS
for the proposed Detroit area, would be suspended for as long as the
area continues to attain the 2015 ozone NAAQS. 40 CFR 51.1318. This
action does not constitute a redesignation of the area to attainment of
the 2015 ozone NAAQS under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA, nor does it
constitute approval of a maintenance plan for the area as required
under section 175A of the CAA, nor does it find that the area has met
all other requirements for redesignation. The Detroit area will remain
designated nonattainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS until such time as
EPA determines that the area meets CAA requirements for redesignation
to attainment and takes a separate action to redesignate the area.

IV. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing to approve a determination under the CAA that the
Detroit area has attained the 2015 ozone NAAQS. This determination is
based upon complete, quality-assured, and certified ambient air
monitoring data for the 2020-2022 design period showing that the area
achieved attainment of the 2015 ozone NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to
take final agency action on an exceptional events request submitted by
EGLE on January 26, 2023, and concurred on by EPA on January 30, 2023.
As a result of these determinations, EPA is proposing to suspend the
requirements for the area to submit attainment demonstrations and
associated RACM, RFP plans, contingency measures for failure to attain
or make reasonable progress, and other planning SIPs related to
attainment of the 2015 ozone NAAQS, for as long as the area continues
to attain the 2015 ozone NAAQS.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action proposes to make a clean data determination for the
Detroit area for the 2015 ozone NAAQS based on air quality data which
would result in the suspension of certain Federal requirements and does
not impose any additional requirements. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: January 30, 2023.
Debra Shore,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2023-02284 Filed 2-2-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 141 (Monday, July 25, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44185-44186]
[FR Doc No: 2022-15800]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket Number FRA-2020-0087]

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    Under part 211 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this
provides

the public notice that on June 28, 2022, Illinois Central Railroad
Company, for itself and on behalf of the U.S. railroad subsidiaries
operating under the Canadian National Railway Company (CN), resubmitted
a petition to the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for a waiver of
compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety
regulations contained at 49 CFR part 232, Brake System Safety Standards
for Freight and Other Non-Passenger Trains and Equipment; End-of-Train
Devices. The relevant FRA Docket Number is FRA-2020-0087.
    Specifically, CN resubmits a request to use software technology to
implement a virtual three-dimensional simulation as an alternative to
satisfy the ``hands-on'' portion of periodic refresher training
required by 49 CFR 232.203(b)(8). Refresher training is required at
intervals not to exceed 3 years, and must consist of classroom and
hands-on training, as well as testing. CN cites FRA's January 10, 2022,
denial \1\ of its previous petition and states that its June 28, 2022,
resubmission addresses the concerns raised in FRA's decision letter. In
support of its petition, CN explains that the proposed ``systematic,
blended training curriculum'' ``exceeds the training objectives''
required by the regulation ``and is designed to increase user
proficiency'' and ``reduc[e] air brake defects across the CN network.''
CN notes that it ``only plans to use this requested waiver for
refresher training of employees in train and engine service,'' and not
for any other craft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ https://www.regulations.gov/document/FRA-2020-0087-0006.
_____________________________________-

    A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications
concerning the petition, is available for review online at
www.regulations.gov.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested parties
desire an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they
should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and
specify the basis for their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number and may be submitted at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
    Communications received by September 8, 2022 will be considered by
FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date
will be considered if practicable.
    Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications
and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the
individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if
submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.).
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) solicits
comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT posts
these comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at https://www.transportation.gov/privacy. See also https://www.regulations.gov/privacy-notice for the privacy notice of regulations.gov.

    Issued in Washington, DC.
John Karl Alexy,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Safety, Chief Safety Officer.
[FR Doc. 2022-15800 Filed 7-22-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 123 (Wednesday, June 26, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38200-38203]
[FR Doc No: 2013-15310]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2013-0078]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zones; Annual Independence Day Fireworks Displays,
Skagway, Haines, and Wrangell, AK

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing the following three permanent
safety zones on the navigable waters of Taiya Inlet in the vicinity of
on the White Pass and Yukon Railway Dock, Skagway; Portage Cove, Haines
and; Wrangell Harbor, Wrangell, Alaska. These safety zones are
necessary to protect spectators and vessels from the hazards associated
with the annual

Independence Day Fireworks Displays held in each location. This rule is
intended to restrict all vessels from a portion of the navigable waters
in the immediate vicinity of the fireworks launch platforms, before,
during and immediately after the fireworks event.

DATES: This rule is effective July 26, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
USCG-2013-0078. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the
docket number in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also
visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground
floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Lieutenant Patrick Drayer, Waterways Management Division,
U.S. Coast Guard Sector Juneau, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Barbara Hairston, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

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

A. Regulatory History and Information

    The Coast Guard published an NPRM for this rule in the Federal
Register on Monday, April 1, 2013 (78 FR 19431). No comments were
received on this docket and there were no requests for public meetings.

B. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis for the rule is 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter
701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6,
160.5; Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
    The cities of Skagway, Haines, and Wrangell, Alaska hold fireworks
displays on or about the July 4th of each year to celebrate
Independence Day. The fireworks will be launched from a barge or
waterfront facility. This rule is necessary to ensure the safety of
spectators and vessels from hazards associated with fireworks.
Fireworks launched in close proximity to watercraft pose a significant
risk to public safety and property. Such displays draw large numbers of
spectators on vessels. The combination of a large number of spectators,
congested waterways, darkness punctuated by bright flashes of light,
and burning debris has the potential to result in serious injuries or
fatalities. The safety zones will restrict vessels from operating
within a portion of the navigable waters around the fireworks launch
platforms during the enforcement period which will be immediately
before, during, and immediately after the fireworks displays.

C. Discussion of Comments, Changes and the Final Rule

    No comments were received during the comment period and thus there
were no changes.
    The Coast Guard is establishing three permanent safety zones on the
navigable waters of Taiya Inlet, Skagway; Portage Cove, Haines; and
Wrangell Harbor, Wrangell, AK. The safety zones are necessary to ensure
the safety of spectators and vessels from hazards associated with
fireworks displays. Each safety zone will include the navigable waters
within a 300-yard radius around the fireworks launch platform. The
fireworks displays are expected to occur between 11 p.m. and 11:45 p.m.
In order to coordinate the safe movement of vessels within the area and
to ensure that the area is clear of unauthorized persons and vessels
before, during, and immediately after the fireworks launch, these zones
will be enforced from 10 p.m. until 2:30 a.m. This effective period of
the safety zones is to account for the possibility that if the
fireworks displays are postponed because of inclement weather, we would
be able to adjust the enforcement period of the safety zones. The
specific date and duration of the enforcement period will be announced
in the Local Notices to Mariners and maritime advisories widely
available to mariners.
    Vessels will be able to transit the surrounding area and may be
authorized to transit through the safety zone with the permission of
the COTP or the designated representative. Before activating the zones
we will notify mariners by appropriate means including but not limited
to Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

D. Regulatory Analyses

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

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. The Coast Guard's
enforcement of these safety zones will be of short duration,
approximately three hours. Furthermore, vessels may be authorized to
transit through the safety zones with the permission of the COTP.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business
Administration on this rule. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C.
605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    This rule would affect the following entities, some of which might
be small entities: the owners and operators of vessels intending to
transit, anchor, or fish in a portion of the navigable waters of Taiya
Inlet, Skagway; Portage Cove, Haines; and Wrangell Harbor, Wrangell,
Alaska; during the periods of enforcement of these safety zones.
    These safety zones would not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. These
safety zones would be subject to enforcement only immediately before,
during, and immediately after the firework displays that may occur from
July 3 at 10 p.m. ADT until 2:30 a.m. ADT on July 5 each year. Vessel
traffic could pass safely around the safety zones. Before the
enforcement of any of the safety zones,

we would issue maritime advisories widely available to users of the
waterway.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT,
above.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

5. Federalism

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

6. Protest Activities

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

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

8. Taking of Private Property

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

9. Civil Justice Reform

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

10. Protection of Children

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

11. Indian Tribal Governments

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

12. Energy Effects

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

13. Technical Standards

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

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined
that this action is one of a category of actions that do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule involves the establishment of three permanent
safety zones on the navigable waters of Taiya Inlet, Skagway; Portage
Cove, Haines; and Wrangell Harbor, Wrangell, AK, respectively. This
rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph
34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. A preliminary
environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a
Categorical Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where
indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine Safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS.

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

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703;
50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Pub. L.
107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.1712 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.1712  Safety Zones; Annual Independence Day Firework
Displays, Skagway, Haines, and Wrangell, AK.

    (a) Regulated areas. The following areas are permanent safety
zones:
    (1) All navigable waters of Taiya Inlet within a 300-yard radius of
the fireworks launching point located on the White Pass and Yukon
Railway Dock at approximate position 59[deg]26.70' N, 135[deg]19.58' W
in the vicinity of the mouth of the Small Boat Harbor, Skagway, Alaska;
    (2) All navigable waters of Portage Cove, Haines, AK within a 300-
yard radius around the fireworks launch area, centered at approximate
position 59[deg]14'16.72'' N, 135[deg]25'35.79'' W; (3) all navigable
waters of Wrangell Harbor within a 300-yard radius of the fireworks
launch platform centered at approximate position 56[deg]28.223' N and
132[deg]23.285' W.
    (b) Effective date. This rule is effective from 10 p.m. until 2:30
a.m., July 3 through July 5, of each year.

    (c) Definitions. The following definitions apply to this section:
    Designated Representative--a ``designated representative'' is any
Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer of the U.S. Coast
Guard who has been designated by the Captain of the Port, to act on his
or her behalf.
    (d) Regulations. (1) The general regulations contained in 33 CFR
165.23, as well as the following regulations, apply.
    (2) No vessels, except for fireworks barge and accompanying
vessels, will be allowed to transit the safety zones without the
permission of the COTP or the designated representative.
    (3) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within any of the
regulated areas shall contact the COTP or the designated representative
via VHF channel 16 or<PHONE_NUMBER> (Sector Juneau command center) to
obtain permission to do so.

    Dated: June 1, 2013.
S.W. Bornemann,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Southeast Alaska.
[FR Doc. 2013-15310 Filed 6-25-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 20 (Wednesday, February 1, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 8925]
[FR Doc No: 2017-02086]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER17-848-000]

Iron Horse Battery Storage, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204
Authorization

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Iron Horse Battery Storage, LLC's application for market-based rate
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such
application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR
part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington,
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is February 15, 2017.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic 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>.

    Dated: January 26, 2017.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-02086 Filed 1-31-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Issued by the Department of Transportation on February 8, 2006

NOTICE OF ACTION TAKEN -- DOCKETS OST-2001-11028, 2004-19820,
2004-19893, and 2004-20008

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________

This serves as notice to the public of the action described below, taken
by the Department official indicated (no additional confirming order
will be issued in this matter).

Applicant:  COMPANIA MEXICANA de AVIACION, S.A. de C.V. (Mexicana)
  Date Filed:  December 27, 2005

Relief requested:  Renewal of exemption from 49 USC § 41301 to permit
the applicant to conduct scheduled foreign air transportation of
persons, property, and mail between: 1) Mexico City, Mexico, and Miami,
Florida, and beyond; 2) the four Mexican coterminal points Leon,
Morelia, Cancun, and San Jose del Cabo, on the one hand, and Sacramento,
California, on the other hand; 3) San Jose del Cabo, Mexico, and Las
Vegas, Nevada; 4) the two Mexican coterminal points San Jose del Cabo
and Cancun, on the one hand, and Oakland, California, on the other hand;
and 5) Guadalajara, Mexico, and Charlotte, North Carolina.

If renewal, date and citation of last action:  January 5, 2005, in
Docket OST-2001-11028; December 22, 2004, in Docket OST-2004-19820;
December 30, 2004, in Docket 2004-19893; and January 27, 2005, in Docket
OST-2004-20008.

Applicant representative:  Charles F. Donley II,<PHONE_NUMBER>	DOT
analyst:  Robert J. Finamore,<PHONE_NUMBER>

Responsive pleadings:  None.

	DISPOSITION

Action:  Approved.
                                     Action date:  February 8, 2006

Effective dates of authority granted:  February 8, 2006, through
February 8, 2007.

Basis for approval (bilateral agreement/reciprocity): United
States-Mexico Air Transport Services Agreement.

Except to the extent exempted/waived, this authority is subject to the
terms, conditions, and limitations of our standard exemption conditions
(attached), and to the otherwise-applicable terms, conditions, and
limitations of Mexicana’s foreign air carrier permit (Order 78-6-127).

Action taken by:   Paul L. Gretch, Director, Office of International
Aviation

________________________________________________________________________
________________________________

Under authority assigned by the Department in its regulations, 14 CFR
Part 385, we found that (1) our action was consistent with Department
policy; (2) the applicant was qualified to perform its proposed
operations; (3) grant of the authority was consistent with the public
interest; and (4) grant of the authority would not constitute a major
regulatory action under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975.
To the extent not granted/deferred/dismissed, we denied all requests in
the referenced Docket.  We may amend, modify, or revoke the authority
granted in this Notice at any time without hearing at our discretion.

Persons entitled to petition the Department for review of the action set
forth in this Notice under the Department’s regulations, 14 CFR
§385.30, may file their petitions within seven (7) days after the date
of issuance of this Notice.  This action was effective when taken, and
the filing of a petition for review will not alter such effectiveness.

An electronic version of this document is available on the World Wide
Web at:

http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

FOREIGN CARRIER EXEMPTION CONDITIONS
                              ATTACHMENT

In the conduct of the operations authorized, the foreign carrier
applicant(s) shall:

1) Not conduct any operations unless it holds a currently effective
authorization from its homeland for such operations, and it has filed a
copy of such authorization with the Department;

2) Comply with all applicable requirements of the Federal Aviation
Administration, including, but not limited to, 14 CFR Parts 129, 91, and
36, and with all applicable U.S. Government requirements concerning
security, including, but not limited to, 49 CFR Part 1546 or 1550, as
applicable.  To assure compliance with all applicable U.S. Government
requirements concerning security, the holder shall, before commencing
any new service (including charter flights) from a foreign airport that
would be the holder’s last point of departure for the United States,
contact its International Principal Security Inspector (IPSI) to advise
the IPSI of its plans and to find out whether the Transportation
Security Administration has determined that security is adequate to
allow such airport(s) to be served;

3) Comply with the requirements for minimum insurance coverage contained
in 14 CFR Part 205, and, prior to the commencement of any operations
under this authority, file evidence of such coverage, in the form of a
completed OST Form 6411, with the Federal Aviation Administration’s
Program Management Branch (AFS-260), Flight Standards Service (any
changes to, or termination of, insurance also shall be filed with that
office);

4) Not operate aircraft under this authority unless it complies with
operational safety requirements at least equivalent to Annex 6 of the
Chicago Convention;

5) Conform to the airworthiness and airman competency requirements of
its Government for international air services;

6) Except as specifically exempted or otherwise provided for in a
Department Order, comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 203,
concerning waiver of Warsaw Convention liability limits and defenses;

7) Agree that operations under this authority constitute a waiver of
sovereign immunity, for the purposes of 28 U.S.C. 1605(a), but only with
respect to those actions or proceedings instituted against it in any
court or other tribunal in the United States that are: a) based on its
operations in international air transportation that, according to the
contract of carriage, include a point in the United States as a point of
origin, point of destination, or agreed stopping place, or for which the
contract of carriage was purchased in the United States; or b) based on
a claim under any international agreement or treaty cognizable in any
court or other tribunal of the United States.  In this condition, the
term “international air transportation” means “international
transportation” as defined by the Warsaw Convention, except that all
States shall be considered to be High Contracting Parties for the
purpose of this definition;

8) Except as specifically authorized by the Department, originate or
terminate all flights to/from the United States in its homeland;

9) Comply with the requirements of 14 CFR Part 217, concerning the
reporting of scheduled, nonscheduled, and charter data;

10) If charter operations are authorized, except as otherwise provided
in the applicable aviation agreement, comply with the Department’s
rules governing charters (including 14 CFR Parts 212 and 380); and

11) Comply with such other reasonable terms, conditions, and limitations
required by the public interest as may be prescribed by the Department,
with all applicable orders or regulations of other U.S. agencies and
courts, and with all applicable laws of the United States.

This authority shall not be effective during any period when the holder
is not in compliance with the conditions imposed above.  Moreover, this
authority cannot be sold or otherwise transferred without explicit
Department approval under Title 49 of the U.S. Code.

 05/2004


[Federal Register: July 8, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 130)]
[Notices]
[Page 39325]
[DOCID:fr08jy10-147]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary

Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart B
(Formerly Subpart Q) During the Week Ending June 19, 2010

    The following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience
and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier.
    Permits were filed under Subpart B (formerly Subpart Q) of the
Department of Transportation's Procedural Regulations (See 14 CFR
301.201 et seq.). The due date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or
Motions to Modify Scope are set forth below for each application.
Following the Answer period DOT may process the application by
expedited procedures. Such procedures may consist of the adoption of a
show-cause order, a tentative order, or in appropriate cases a final
order without further proceedings.

    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2010-0153.
    Date Filed: June 14, 2010.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify
Scope: July 6, 2010.
    Description: Application of Aviation Services, Ltd. (d/b/a Freedom
Air (Guam)) (``Freedom Air'') requesting a certificate of public
convenience and necessity authorizing Freedom Air to engage in foreign
charter air transportation of persons property and mail.

    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2010-0156.
    Date Filed: June 16, 2010.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify
Scope: July 7, 2010.
    Description: Application of Island Airlines, LLC requesting
authority to conduct operations as a commuter air carrier.

    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2010-0157.
    Date Filed: June 17, 2010.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify
Scope: July 8, 2010.
    Description: Application of Southern Air Inc. requesting a
certificate of public convenience and necessity and an exemption to
engage in scheduled foreign air transportation of property and mail
between a point or points in the United States, on one hand, and a
point or points in the People's Republic of China, on the other hand,
via intermediate points, and beyond China.

    Docket Number: DOT-OST-2001-10385.
    Date Filed: June 18, 2010.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify
Scope: July 9, 2010.
    Description: Application of Air Europa Lineas Aereas, S.A.U.
requesting renewal of its exemption authority and a foreign air carrier
permit to engage in: (i) Foreign scheduled and charter air
transportation of persons, property and mail from any point or points
behind any Member State of the European Union via any point or points
in any Member State and via intermediate points to any point or points
in the United States and beyond; (ii) foreign scheduled and charter air
transportation of persons, property and mail between any point or
points in the United States and any point or points in any member of
the European Common Aviation Area; (iii) foreign scheduled and charter
cargo air transportation between any point or points in the United
States and any other point or points; (iv) other charters pursuant to
prior approval requirements; and (v) transportation authorized by any
additional route rights made available to European Community carrier in
the future.

Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. 2010-16620 Filed 7-7-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-9X-P