		DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES			Public Health Service

																			Food and Drug Administration

		Rockville MD 20857

December 5, 2006

Michael F. Jacobson, Ph.D.

Executive Director

1875 Connecticut Ave., NW

Suite 300

Washington, DC 20009-5728

Dear Dr. Jacobson:

Your petition requesting the Food and Drug Administration to issue an advance notice of proposed rulemaking regarding the use of symbols on the principal display panel that would communicate to consumers the healthfulness of foods was received by this office on 12/05/2006.  It was assigned docket number 2006P-0498/CP1 and it was filed on 12/05/2006. Please refer to this docket number in future correspondence on this subject with the Agency.

Please note that the acceptance of the petition for filing is a procedural matter in that it in no way reflects an agency decision on the substantive merits of the petition.

Sincerely,

Jennie Butler, Director

Division of Dockets Management

Office of Management Programs

Office of Management

 PAGE   1

 PAGE   2


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 45 (Thursday, March 7, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 8262-8263]
[FR Doc No: 2019-04051]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 62

[EPA-R07-OAR-2018-0812; FRL-9989-73-Region 7]

Approval of State Plans for Designated Facilities and Pollutants;
Kansas; Sewage Sludge Incineration Units

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is accepting the
negative declaration submitted by the State of Kansas, for Sewage
Sludge Incineration (SSI) units. This negative declaration submitted by
the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) certifies that
SSI units subject to sections 111(d) and 129 of the Clean Air Act (CAA)
do not exist within the jurisdiction of the State of Kansas. The EPA is
accepting the negative declaration in accordance with the requirements
of the CAA.

DATES: This final rule will be effective April 8, 2019.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2018-0812. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available through https://www.regulations.gov or please contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry Gonzalez, Environmental
Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner
Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' or
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. What action is EPA taking?
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    The Clean Air Act (CAA) requires that state regulatory agencies
implement emission guidelines and associated compliance times using a
state plan developed under sections 111(d) and 129 of the CAA.
    The general provisions for the submittal and approval of state
plans are codified in 40 CFR part 60, subpart B and 40 CFR part 62,
subpart A. Section 111(d) establishes general requirements and
procedures on state plan submittals for the control of designated
pollutants. Section 129 requires emission guidelines to be promulgated
for all categories of solid waste incineration units, including SSI
units. SSI units are defined at 40 CFR 60.5250 as an incineration unit
combusting sewage sludge for the purpose of reducing the volume of the
sewage sludge by removing combustible matter. Sewage sludge
incineration unit designs include fluidized bed and multiple hearth. A
SSI unit also includes, but is not limited to, the sewage sludge feed
system, auxiliary fuel feed system, grate system, flue gas system,
waste heat recovery equipment, if any, and bottom ash system. The SSI
unit includes all ash handling systems connected to the bottom ash
handling system. The combustion unit bottom ash system ends at the
truck loading station or similar equipment that transfers the ash to
final disposal. The SSI unit does not include air pollution control
equipment or the stack.
    Section 129 mandates that all plan requirements be at least as
protective as the promulgated emission guidelines. This includes fixed
final compliance dates, fixed compliance schedules, and Title V
permitting requirements for all affected sources. Section 129 also
requires that state plans be submitted to EPA within one year after
EPA's promulgation of the emission guidelines and compliance times.
    States have options other than submitting a state plan in order to
fulfill their obligations under CAA sections 111(d) and 129. If a state
does not have any existing SSI units for the relevant emission
guidelines, a letter can be submitted certifying that no such units
exist within the state (i.e., negative declaration) in lieu of a state
plan, in accordance with 40 CFR 60.5010. The negative declaration
exempts the state from the requirements of subpart B that would
otherwise require the submittal of a CAA section 111(d)/129 plan.
    On March 21, 2011, EPA finalized emission guidelines for SSI units
at 76 FR 15372, (found at 40 CFR part 60, subpart MMMM). Following the
2011 final rule, KDHE determined that there were two SSI units
operating at a single facility in Kansas, but those units were
permanently shut down on June 14, 2014 and September 7, 2016. Prior to
shutdown of the two units at the single facility in Kansas, the two
units were regulated via the Federal plan under the enforcement
oversight of EPA Region 7. In response and following the shutdown of
the units, KDHE submitted a negative declaration for SSI units on April
30, 2018.
    On December 26, 2018, the EPA published in the Federal Register at
83 FR 66209, a rule proposing to accept KDHE's certification that there
exists no SSI units operating in the State of Kansas Subject to 40 CFR
part 60, subpart MMMM. In response to this proposal, EPA received no
adverse comments. Therefore, the EPA is finalizing acceptance of KDHE's
negative declaration submission made on April 30, 2018. This action
applies to the state's regulatory requirements for existing facilities
and not new sources.

II. What action is EPA taking?

    In this rule, the EPA is amending 40 CFR part 62 to reflect receipt
of the negative declaration letter from the state of Kanas (KDHE)
certifying that there are no existing SSI units subject to 40 CFR part
60, subpart MMMM, in accordance with section 111(d) of the CAA.

III. Statutory and Executive Orders

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011). This action is also not subject to Executive Order
13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This
action approves the state's negative declaration as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that
this rulemaking will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this action does not impose an
enforceable duty upon State, local, or tribal governments, and does not
reduce or eliminate the amount of authorization of Federal
appropriations, and because it contains no regulatory requirements
applicable to small governments, this action 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).
    This action 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).
    This action also does not have Federalism implications because it
does 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 (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999). Thus Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action.
This action merely approves a state's negative declaration submitted in
response to a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA.
This rulemaking also is not subject to Executive Order 13045,
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it approves a state
submission in response to a Federal standard.
    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Administrative
practice and procedure, sewage sludge incineration units.

    Dated: March 1, 2019.
James Gulliford,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 62
as set forth below:

PART 62--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF STATE PLANS FOR DESIGNATED
FACILITIES AND POLLUTANTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 62 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart R--Kansas

0
2. Amend subpart R by adding an undesignated center heading and Sec.
62.4183 to read as follows:

Air Emissions From Existing Sewage Sludge Incineration Units

Sec.  62.4183  Identification of plan--negative declaration.

    Letter from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment
submitted April 30, 2018, certifying that there are no sewage sludge
incineration units subject to 40 CFR part 60, subpart MMMM.

[FR Doc. 2019-04051 Filed 3-6-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 152 (Thursday, August 7, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46184-46187]
[FR Doc No: 2014-18478]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0499; FRL-9914-54-Region-3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Virginia; Revisions to the Definition of Volatile Organic Compounds

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct
final action to approve revisions to the Commonwealth of Virginia's
State Implementation Plan (SIP). The revisions add five compounds to
the list of substances not considered to be volatile organic compounds
(VOC). EPA is approving these revisions in accordance with the
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: This rule is effective on October 6, 2014 without further
notice, unless EPA receives adverse written comment by September 8,
2014. If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely
withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform
the public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2014-0499 by one of the following methods:
    A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    B. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2014-0499, Cristina Fernandez, Associate
Director, Office of Air Program Planning, Air Protection Division,
Mailcode 3AP30, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650
Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2014-0499. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal
are available at the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 629
East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Schmitt,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Tropospheric ozone, commonly known as smog, is formed when VOCs and
nitrogen oxides react in the atmosphere in the presence of sunlight.
Because of the harmful health effects of ozone, EPA and state
governments limit the amount of VOCs that can be released into the
atmosphere. VOCs have different levels of reactivity, that is, some
VOCs react slowly or form less ozone, and therefore, changes in their
emissions have limited effects on local or regional ozone pollution
episodes. It has been EPA's policy that VOCs with a negligible level of
reactivity should be excluded from the regulatory definition of VOC
contained at 40 CFR 51.100(s) so as to focus control efforts on
compounds that do significantly increase ozone concentrations. This is
accomplished by adding the substance to a list of compounds not
considered to be VOCs, and thus, excluded from the definition of VOC.
EPA believes that exempting such compounds creates an incentive for
industry to use negligibly reactive compounds in place of more highly
reactive compounds that are regulated as VOCs.
    On June 22, 2012 (77 FR 37610) and February 12, 2013 (78 FR 9823),
EPA revised the definition of VOC contained in 40 CFR 51.100 to exclude
five substances from the definition of VOC and corrected the citation
for one substance. The compounds excluded from the definition of VOC
are listed as follows: Trans-1,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene (also known as
HFO-1234ze), HCF2OCF2H (also known as HFE-134), HCF2OCF2OCF2H (also
known as HFE-236cal2), HCF2OCF2CF2OCF2H (also known as HFE-338pcc13),
and HCF2OCF2OCF2CF2OCF2H (also known as HGalden 1040x, H-Galden ZT 130,
H-Galden ZT 150, or H-Galden ZT 180). In the February 12, 2013
rulemaking action, EPA also corrected the citation for
1,1,1,2,2,3,4,5,5,5-decafluoro-3-methoxy-4-trifluoromethylpentane (also
known as HFE-7300).

II. Summary of SIP Revision

    On April 11, 2014, the Commonwealth of Virginia submitted a formal
revision to its SIP. The SIP revision consists of adding the compound,
``trans-1,3,3,3-tetrafluoropropene'' also know as ``HFO-1234ze,'' to
the list of substances that are not considered VOCs as well as minor
administrative changes to the definition of ``Total suspended
particulate,'' both contained in 9VAC5-10-20.
    On May 22, 2014, the Commonwealth of Virginia submitted a formal
revision to its SIP which consists of adding four additional compounds
to the list of substances that are not considered VOCs found at 9VAC5-
10-20; these

compounds are as follows: HCF2OCF2H (also known as HFE-134),
HCF2OCF2OCF2H (also known as HFE-236cal2), HCF2OCF2CF2OCF2H (also known
as HFE-338pcc13), and HCF2OCF2OCF2CF2OCF2H (also known as HGalden
1040x, H-Galden ZT 130, H-Galden ZT 150, or H-Galden ZT 180). In
addition, the May 22, 2014 submittal also made minor administrative
corrections to the citation for 1,1,1,2,2,3,4,5,5,5-decafluoro-3-
methoxy-4-trifluoromethylpentane (also known as HFE-7300).
    In total, the April 11, 2014 and May 22, 2014 SIP revisions will
allow the Virginia SIP to mirror the Federal definition of VOC. EPA
believes that by excluding these negligibly reactive compounds from the
definition of VOC an incentive is created for industry to use
negligibly reactive compounds in place of more highly reactive
compounds; therefore, the air quality in Virginia will not be
negatively affected by the approval of these SIP revisions particularly
as EPA has found these compounds negligibly reactive for ozone
formation.

III. Corrections

    On November 21, 2011 (76 FR 71881), EPA published a Final
Rulemaking Notice which updated the materials incorporated by reference
into the Virginia SIP. In that rulemaking action, EPA instructed the
Office of the Federal Register to remove the first five entries for
Section 5-10-20 from the table contained in paragraph (c) of 40 CFR
52.2420 and retain the remaining entries for that section.
Inadvertently, those five entries were not removed, and the remaining
entries for Section 5-10-20 that were intended to be retained were
mistakenly removed. In today's rulemaking action, EPA corrects that
error. The entries that were intended to be retained in the November
21, 2011 rulemaking action were for four previously approved SIP
revisions that revised 9VAC5-10-20; these revisions to the Virginia SIP
were previously approved by EPA between March 2004 and February 2011.

IV. Final Action

    EPA is approving the revisions to the definition of VOC, submitted
by Virginia on April 11, 2014 and May 22, 2014, as a revision to the
Virginia SIP. In addition, EPA is correcting an error in which previous
entries to the table in paragraph (c) of 40 CFR 52.2420 were
inadvertently removed. EPA is publishing this rule without prior
proposal because EPA views this as a noncontroversial amendment and
anticipates no adverse comment. However, in the ``Proposed Rules''
section of today's Federal Register, EPA is publishing a separate
document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if
adverse comments are filed. This rule will be effective on October 6,
2014 without further notice unless EPA receives adverse comment by
September 8, 2014. If EPA receives adverse comment, EPA will publish a
timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the
rule will not take effect. EPA will address all public comments in a
subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not
institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties
interested in commenting must do so at this time.

V. General Information Pertaining to SIP Submittals From the
Commonwealth of Virginia

    In 1995, Virginia adopted legislation that provides, subject to
certain conditions, for an environmental assessment (audit)
``privilege'' for voluntary compliance evaluations performed by a
regulated entity. The legislation further addresses the relative burden
of proof for parties either asserting the privilege or seeking
disclosure of documents for which the privilege is claimed. Virginia's
legislation also provides, subject to certain conditions, for a penalty
waiver for violations of environmental laws when a regulated entity
discovers such violations pursuant to a voluntary compliance evaluation
and voluntarily discloses such violations to the Commonwealth and takes
prompt and appropriate measures to remedy the violations. Virginia's
Voluntary Environmental Assessment Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-
1198, provides a privilege that protects from disclosure documents and
information about the content of those documents that are the product
of a voluntary environmental assessment. The Privilege Law does not
extend to documents or information that: (1) Are generated or developed
before the commencement of a voluntary environmental assessment; (2)
are prepared independently of the assessment process; (3) demonstrate a
clear, imminent and substantial danger to the public health or
environment; or (4) are required by law.
    On January 12, 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia Office of the
Attorney General provided a legal opinion that states that the
Privilege Law, Va. Code Sec.  10.1-1198, precludes granting a privilege
to documents and information ``required by law,'' including documents
and information ``required by Federal law to maintain program
delegation, authorization or approval,'' since Virginia must ``enforce
Federally authorized environmental programs in a manner that is no less
stringent than their Federal counterparts . . .'' The opinion concludes
that ``[r]egarding Sec.  10.1-1198, therefore, documents or other
information needed for civil or criminal enforcement under one of these
programs could not be privileged because such documents and information
are essential to pursuing enforcement in a manner required by Federal
law to maintain program delegation, authorization or approval.''
Virginia's Immunity law, Va. Code Sec. 10.1-1199, provides that ``[t]o
the extent consistent with requirements imposed by Federal law,'' any
person making a voluntary disclosure of information to a state agency
regarding a violation of an environmental statute, regulation, permit,
or administrative order is granted immunity from administrative or
civil penalty. The Attorney General's January 12, 1998 opinion states
that the quoted language renders this statute inapplicable to
enforcement of any Federally authorized programs, since ``no immunity
could be afforded from administrative, civil, or criminal penalties
because granting such immunity would not be consistent with Federal
law, which is one of the criteria for immunity.''
    Therefore, EPA has determined that Virginia's Privilege and
Immunity statutes will not preclude the Commonwealth from enforcing its
program consistent with the Federal requirements. In any event, because
EPA has also determined that a state audit privilege and immunity law
can affect only state enforcement and cannot have any impact on Federal
enforcement authorities, EPA may at any time invoke its authority under
the CAA, including, for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to
enforce the requirements or prohibitions of the state plan,
independently of any state enforcement effort. In addition, citizen
enforcement under section 304 of the CAA is likewise unaffected by
this, or any, state audit privilege or immunity law.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,

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

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

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

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by October 6, 2014. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are
encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of
proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules
section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate
petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can
withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed
rulemaking action. This action, revising the definition of VOCs, 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, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.

    Dated: July 11, 2014.
W. C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region II.
    40 CFR part 52 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 VV--Virginia

0
2. In Sec.  52.2420, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by adding
five entries for Section 5-10-20 after the entry for Section 5-10-20
with a State effective date of 1/1/98. The additions read as follows:

Sec.  52.2420  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                 EPA-Approved Virginia Regulations and Statutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             State
          State citation                Title/Subject      effective   EPA  approval  date  Explanation  [former
                                                             date                               SIP citation]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                9 VAC 5, Chapter 10, General Definitions [Part I]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
5-10-20...........................  Terms Defined.......      8/1/02  3/15/04, 69 FR 12074  Terms Added: EPA,
                                                                                Initial emissions
                                                                                test, Initial
                                                                                performance test
                                                                                (as corrected 11/05/
                                                                                03 and effective 01/
                                                                                01/04 in the
                                                                                Commonwealth),
                                                                                Maintenance area.
                                                                                Terms Revised:
                                                                                Affected facility,
                                                                                Delayed compliance
                                                                                order, Excessive
                                                                                concentration,
                                                                                Federally
                                                                                enforceable,
                                                                                Malfunction, Public
                                                                                hearing, Reference
                                                                                method, Reid vapor
                                                                                pressure,
                                                                                Stationary source,
                                                                                True vapor
                                                                                pressure, Vapor
                                                                                pressure, Volatile
                                                                                organic compounds.
                                                                                Terms Removed: Air
                                                                                Quality Maintenance
                                                                                Areas.
5-10-20...........................  Terms Defined.......     5/04/05  8/18/06, 71 FR 47742  Revised definition
                                                                                of ``volatile
                                                                                organic compound''.
5-10-20...........................  Terms Defined.......      4/2/09  2/25/10, 75 FR 8493.  Revised definitions
                                                                                of Ambient air
                                                                                quality standard,
                                                                                Criteria pollutant,
                                                                                Dispersion
                                                                                technique, Emission
                                                                                limitation,
                                                                                Emission standard,
                                                                                Excessive
                                                                                concentration,
                                                                                Feral Clean Air
                                                                                Act, Federally
                                                                                enforceable, Good
                                                                                engineering
                                                                                practice, Initial
                                                                                emission test,
                                                                                Initial performance
                                                                                test, Public
                                                                                hearing, Reference
                                                                                method, Regulations
                                                                                for the Control and
                                                                                Abatement of Air
                                                                                Pollution, Reid
                                                                                vapor pressure,
                                                                                Run, Standard of
                                                                                performance, State
                                                                                enforceable, These
                                                                                regulations, True
                                                                                vapor pressure,
                                                                                Vapor pressure, and
                                                                                Volatile organic
                                                                                compound.
5-10-20...........................  Terms Defined.......     2/18/10  2/14/11, 76 FR 8298.  Revised definition
                                                                                of ``Volatile
                                                                                organic compound.''
5-10-20...........................  Terms Defined.......    12/5/13,  8/7/14, [Insert page  Revised definition
                                                             3/27/14   number where the      of VOC.
                                                                       document begins].

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

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2014-18478 Filed 8-6-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: February 14, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 30)]
[Notices]
[Page 7751-7752]
[DOCID:fr14fe06-39]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. IC06-567-000; FERC-567]

Commission Information Collection Activities, Proposed
Collection; Comment Request; Extension

February 7, 2006.
AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the requirements of section 3506(c)(2)(a)
of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13), the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) is soliciting public comment
on the specific aspects of the information collection described below.

DATES: Comments on the collection of information are due April 14,
2006.

ADDRESSES: Copies of sample filings of the collection of information
can be obtained from the Commission's Web site (http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filings/elibrary.asp
) or from the Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission, Attn: Michael Miller, Office of the Executive Director, ED-
34, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Comments may be filed
either in paper format or electronically. Those parties filing
electronically do not need to make a paper filing. For paper filing,
the original and 14 copies of such comments should be submitted to the
Office of the Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426 and refer to Docket No. IC06-
567-000. Documents filed electronically via the Internet must be
prepared in WordPerfect, MS Word, Portable Document Format, or ASCII
format. To file the document, access the Commission's Web site at
http://www.ferc.gov and click on ``Make an E-filing'', and then follow

the instructions for each screen. First time users will have to
establish a user name and password. The Commission will send an
automatic acknowledgement to the sender's e-mail address upon receipt
of comments.
    All comments may be viewed, printed or downloaded remotely via the
Internet through FERC's homepage using the eLibrary link. For user
assistance, contact<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at (866)
208-3676 or for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael Miller may be reached by
telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, by fax at<PHONE_NUMBER>, and by e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The information collected under the
requirements of FERC-567 ``Gas Pipeline Certificates: Annual Reports of
System Flow Diagrams and Systems Capacity'' (OMB No. 1902-0005) is used
by the Commission to implement the statutory provisions of sections 4,
5, 6,

7, 9, 10(a) and 16 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), 15 U.S.C. 717-717w and
Title III, sections 301(a), 303(a), 304(d), Title IV, sections 401 and
402, Title V, section 508 of the Natural Gas Policy Act (Pub. L. 95-
621). The information collected under the requirements of FERC-567 is
used by the Commission to obtain accurate data on pipeline facilities.
Specifically, the FERC-567 data is used in determining the
configuration and location of installed pipeline interconnections and
receipt and delivery points; and developing and evaluating alternatives
to proposed facilities as a means to mitigate environmental impact of
new pipeline construction.
    FERC-567 also contains valuable information that can be used to
assist federal officials in maintaining adequate natural gas service in
times of national emergency. The Commission implements these filing
requirements in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) under 18 CFR
Parts 260 and 284, Sec. Sec.  260.8 and 284.13.
    Action: The Commission is requesting a three-year extension of the
current expiration date, with no changes to the existing collection of
data.
    Burden Statement: Public reporting burden for this collection is
estimated as:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Number of          Number of       Average burden     Total annual
   respondents       responses per        hours per       burden  hours
   annually (1)      respondent (2)     response (3)     (1) x (2) x (3)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             91             1,714*              81.58           12,724
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Derived by dividing the total number of responses expected annually
  (156) by the number of respondents (91) and rounding to three places.

    Estimated cost burden to respondents is $689,830 (12,724 hours/2080
hours per year times $112,767 per year average per employee = $
689,830). The cost per respondent is $7,581.
    The reporting burden includes the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended to generate, maintain, retain, disclose, or provide
the information including: (1) Reviewing instructions; (2) developing,
acquiring, installing, and utilizing technology and systems for the
purposes of collecting, validating, verifying, processing, maintaining,
disclosing and providing information; (3) adjusting the existing ways
to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
(4) training personnel to respond to a collection of information; (5)
searching data sources; (6) completing and reviewing the collection of
information; and (7) transmitting, or otherwise disclosing the
information.
    The estimate of cost for respondents is based upon salaries for
professional and clerical support, as well as direct and indirect
overhead costs. Direct costs include all costs directly attributable to
providing this information, such as administrative costs and the cost
for information technology. Indirect or overhead costs are costs
incurred by an organization in support of its mission. These costs
apply to activities which benefit the whole organization rather than
any one particular function or activity.
    Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality,
utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are
to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms
of information technology e.g. permitting electronic submission of
responses.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-2044 Filed 2-13-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: April 12, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 69)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 18404-18407]
[DOCID:fr12ap10-8]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 147

[Docket No. USCG-2009-0955]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; FRONTIER DISCOVERER, Outer Continental Shelf
Drillship, Chukchi and Beaufort Sea, Alaska

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone around
the DRILLSHIP FRONTIER DISCOVERER, while anchored or deploying and
recovering moorings on location in order to drill exploratory wells at
various prospects located in the Chukchi and Beaufort Sea Outer
Continental Shelf, Alaska, during the 2010 drilling season. The purpose
of the temporary safety zone is to protect the DRILLSHIP from vessels
operating outside normal shipping channels and fairways. Placing a
temporary safety zone around the DRILLSHIP will significantly reduce
the threat of allisions, oil spills, and releases of natural gas, and
thereby protect the safety of life, property, and the environment.

DATES: This rule is effective from 12:01 a.m. on July 1, 2010, to 11:59
p.m. on November 30, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as
documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket,
are part of docket USCG-2009-0955 and are available online by going to
http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2009-0955 in the ``Keyword''
box, and then clicking ``Search.'' This material is also available for
inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S.
Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, 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 e-mail LCDR Ken Phillips, U.S. Coast Guard, District Seventeen,
Office of Prevention; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    On January 6, 2010 we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) entitled ``Safety Zone; FRONTIER DISCOVERER, Outer Continental
Shelf Drillship, Chukchi and Beaufort Sea, Alaska'' in the Federal
Register (75 FR 803). The NPRM included a 30-day comment period. We
received 3 (three) submissions with comments on the proposed rule. No
public meeting was requested, and none was held.

Background and Purpose

    The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone around the
DRILLSHIP FRONTIER DISCOVERER while on location in order to drill
exploratory wells approximately 60 to 124 miles off the northwest coast
in the Chukchi Sea and 13 to 18 miles off the northern coast in the
Beaufort Sea Outer Continental Shelf, Alaska, during the 2010 drilling
season. This rule will be in effective from 12:01 a.m. on July 1,

2010, to 11:59 p.m. on November 30, 2010.
    Shell Exploration & Production Company requested that the Coast
Guard establish a temporary safety zone around the DRILLSHIP FRONTIER
DISCOVERER while on location in order to drill exploratory wells in the
Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, Alaska. The request for the safety zone was
due to safety concerns for both the personnel aboard the DRILLSHIP and
the environment. Shell Exploration & Production Company indicated that
it is highly likely that any allision or inability to identify, monitor
or mitigate ice-related hazards that might be encountered could result
in a catastrophic event. In evaluating this request, the Coast Guard
explored relevant safety factors and considered several criteria,
including but not limited to: (1) The level of shipping activity around
the operation; (2) safety concerns for personnel aboard the vessel; (3)
concerns for the environment, given the sensitivity of the
environmental and subsistence importance to the indigenous population;
(4) the likeliness that an allision could result in a catastrophic
event based on a lack of established shipping fairways, fueling and
supply storage/operations, and size of the crew; (5) the recent and
potential future maritime traffic in the vicinity of the proposed
areas; (6) the types of vessels navigating in the vicinity of the
proposed area; and, (7) the structural configuration of the vessel.
Navigation in the vicinity of the safety zone could consist of large
commercial shipping vessels, fishing vessels, cruise ships, tugs with
tows and the occasional recreational vessel.
    After conducting a comprehensive examination of the criteria, IMO
guidelines, and existing regulations, we conclude that the risk of
allision, the potential for loss of life, and damage to the environment
warrants the establishment of this temporary safety zone. This rule
would significantly reduce the threat of allisions, oil spills, and
releases and increase the safety of life, property, and the environment
in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas by prohibiting entry into the zone
unless specifically authorized by the Commander, Seventeenth Coast
Guard District.
    The complete discussion of the background and purpose for this rule
can be found in the preamble to the NPRM (75 FR 803).

Discussion of Comments and Changes

    One comment was received that opined on the appropriateness of
allowing any drilling to take place in the Chukchi or Bering Seas.
While it is not within the jurisdiction of the Coast Guard to approve
or authorize Outer Continental Shelf activity, we do have the
responsibility to ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, that any
activity is undertaken with the greatest reduction of risk of
allisions, oil spills, and releases of natural gas, and thereby protect
the safety of life, property, and the environment.
    One comment believed that having safety zones around all mobile
drilling vessels is an excellent idea. The Coast Guard issues safety
zones for Outer Continental Shelf activity consistent with the guidance
in 33 CFR 147.10. In each case a safety zone is established only after
evaluating all relevant safety factors and concluding that the
regulation would significantly reduce the threat of an incident.
    One comment was received suggesting that the safety zone be issued
for a multi-year period similar to safety zones in the Gulf of Mexico.
The Coast Guard disagrees. While the Coast Guard understands that the
underlying justifications for the safety zone are not likely to change
from year to year, we find that there are several operational and
permitting variables with respect to these activities to support not
continuing the safety zones period beyond the current 2010 drilling
season as originally requested. Many of these variables would be
considered substantive changes. Some of the factors that dictate a
season by season publication of the safety zone include change in the
vessel being utilized for the exploratory wells; changes in the
published prospect/drilling locations and corresponding latitude/
longitude coordinates; significant change in the future Outer
Continental Shelf Lease Exploration Plans approved by Minerals
Management Service; and the limited timeframe each year (approximately
4 to 5 months) associated with actual on-sight activity. The nature of
this activity as noted above is not currently comparative with the
``manned production facility'' operations in the Gulf of Mexico in that
those safety zones are established for year-round operations on
``permanent'' structures that are engaged in the exploration,
exploitation, and production of sub-sea resources. The Coast Guard will
reconsider the temporary nature of these safety zones should the nature
of the operations significantly change from solely exploratory drilling
operations.
    One comment requested clarification on the involved parties as the
NPRM did not elaborate on the specific parties under which the
exploratory drilling operations will be undertaken. The Coast Guard
notes for clarification that Shell Exploration & Production Company
made the request for the safety zone on behalf of Shell Offshore Inc.,
operator in the Beaufort Sea and Shell Gulf of Mexico Inc., operator in
the Chukchi Sea.
    One comment asked for a clarification with regard to the
probability of a catastrophic event resulting from an incident. The
Coast Guard has amended the ``Background and Purpose'' section of the
Final Rule Federal Register by changing the word ``would'' to ``could''
as it relates to the outcome of an ``allision or inability to identify,
monitor or mitigate ice-related hazards that might be encountered.''
    One comment asked for a correction to the Federal Register
regarding the distances from shore for the exploratory wells in the
Chukchi and Beaufort Seas to be consistent with the respective 2010
Outer Continental Shelf Lease Exploration Plans. The Coast Guard has
amended the ``Background and Purpose'' section of the Final Rule
Federal Register by inserting the distances from shore to be consistent
with the 2010 lease exploration plans.
    One comment requested that a clarification be made concerning the
drilling of ``shallow holes.'' The Coast Guard understands that all
wells will be drilled to the final depth objective or will not be
commenced in the 2010 drilling season in accordance with the Minerals
Management Service requirements.
    One comment requested flexibility with respect to the effective
dates of the temporary safety zone to accommodate completion of non-
drilling activities to include plugging and abandonment operations,
pulling drilling equipment, surveying and restoring the drill sight and
moorings recovery. The Coast Guard understands the nature of the post
drilling activity and agrees that the safety zone effective period
should be extended to provide that needed flexibility until November
30, 2010, but only while the vessel is on location as listed in Table 1
of the rule to cover these activities to ensure the safety of the
personnel aboard the DRILLSHIP and the environment. The Coast Guard has
amended Sec.  147.T17.001(a) to reflect the new effective end date of
November 30, 2010, so long as the vessel is on location.
    One comment requested the rule be amended to have the safety zone
in effect once the vessels is ``on location'' while the mooring system
is being deployed or recovered not only when the vessel is anchored.
The Coast Guard agrees. The safety factors that were evaluated in
determining that a safe

zone was warranted while the vessel was anchored on location are
substantially similar for when the vessel is on location and the
mooring system is in the process of being deployed or recovered. This
determination is consistent with extending the effective end date of
the safety zone to November 30, 2010, to cover the mooring recovery.
The Coast Guard has amended Sec.  147.T17.001(a) to read: ``The area
within 500 meters (1,640.4 feet) from each point on the outer edge of
the vessel while anchored or deploying and recovering moorings on
location is a safety zone.''
    One comment recommended the three ``Burger'' prospects in Column 1
of Table 1 in the rule be delineated as Burger ``C'', Burger ``F'', and
Burger ``J'', respectively, to match the lease exploration plan. The
Coast Guard agrees and has amended Table 1 accordingly.
    One comment supported the determination to prohibit all vessels,
irrespective of size from the safety zone. The Coast Guard determined
this to be the best course of action given the complexities of this
Arctic operation to include ice management issues, Marine Mammal and
Mitigation plan requirements, and a harsh and dynamic offshore
environment to significantly reduce the threat of allisions, oil
spills, and releases and increase the safety of life, property, and the
environment in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, Alaska.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order.
    This rule is not a significant regulatory action due to the
location of the FRONTIER DISCOVERER in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas
Outer Continental Shelf, Alaska, and its distance from both land and
safety fairways. Vessels traversing waters near the temporary safety
zone will be able to safely travel around the zone without incurring
additional costs.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
would 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 or operators of vessels
intending to transit or anchor in the locations where the exploratory
wells will be drilled.
    This temporary safety zone will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following
reasons: This rule will enforce a temporary safety zone around the
FRONTIER DISCOVERER while on location in order to drill exploratory
wells in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas. The location of the safety zone
is not frequented by vessel traffic and is not in close proximity to a
safety fairway. Further, vessel traffic can pass safely around the
temporary safety zone without incurring additional costs.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), in the NPRM we offered to
assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could
better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking
process.
    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.

Collection of Information

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

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under
that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for
federalism.

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 or more in any
one year. Though this rule would not result in such an expenditure, we
do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

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

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.

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 would not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it would 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.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

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 concluded
this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually
or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.
This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph 34(g),
of the Instruction. This rule involves establishing regulations for
safety zones. An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical
exclusion determination are available in the docket where indicated
under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 147

    Continental shelf, Marine safety, Navigation (water).

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 147 as follows:

PART 147--SAFETY ZONES

0
1. The authority citation for part 147 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  14 U.S.C. 85; 43 U.S.C. 1333; Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  147.T001 to read as follows:

Sec.  147.T001  DRILLSHIP FRONTIER DISCOVERER Safety Zone.

    (a) Description. The FRONTIER DISCOVERER will be engaged in
exploratory drilling operations at various locations in the Chukchi and
Beaufort Sea from July 1, 2010, through November 30, 2010. The
DRILLSHIP will be anchored while conducting exploratory drilling
operations with the center point of the vessel located at the
coordinates listed in Table 1. These coordinates are based upon [NAD
83] UTM Zone 3.

                                                               Table 1--Prospect Locations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Prospect                        Area               Block         Lease no.               Latitude                      Longitude
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Burger C...........................  Posey................            6764      OCS-Y-2280  N71[deg]18' 17.2739''          W163[deg]12' 45.9891''
Burger F...........................  Posey................            6714      OCS-Y-2267  N71[deg]20' 13.9640''          W163[deg]12' 21.7460''
Burger J...........................  Posey................            6912      OCS-Y-2321  N71[deg]10' 24.0292''          W163[deg]28' 18.5219''
Crackerjack........................  Karo.................            6864      OCS-Y-2111  N71[deg]13' 58.9211''          W166[deg]14' 10.7889''
SW Shoebill........................  Karo.................            7007      OCS-Y-2142  N71[deg]04' 24.4163''          W167[deg]13' 38.0886''
Sivulliq...........................  Flaxman Is...........            6658      OCS-Y 1805  N70[ordm]23' 29.5814''         W145[ordm]58' 52.5284''
Torpedo............................  Flaxman Is...........            6610      OCS-Y-1941  N70[ordm]27' 01.6193''         W145[ordm]49' 32.0650''
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The area within 500 meters (1,640.4 feet) from each point on the
outer edge of the vessel while anchored or deploying and recovering
moorings on location is a safety zone.
    (b) Regulation. No vessel may enter or remain in this safety zone
except the following:
    (1) An attending vessel;
    (2) A vessel authorized by the Commander, Seventeenth Coast Guard
District.

    Dated: March 12, 2010.
C.C. Colvin,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Seventeenth Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. 2010-8207 Filed 4-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 123 (Tuesday, June 26, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29786-29788]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13713]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2013-0620 and Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0128; FRL-9979-52-ORD]

Second External Review Draft Integrated Science Assessment for
Oxides of Nitrogen, Oxides of Sulfur, and Particulate Matter--
Ecological Criteria

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of public comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing a
public comment period for the draft document titled, ``Second External
Review Draft Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides of Nitrogen,
Oxides of Sulfur, and Particulate Matter--Ecological Criteria'' (EPA/
600/R-18/097). The draft document was prepared by the National Center
for Environmental Assessment (NCEA) within EPA's Office of Research and
Development (ORD) as part of the review of the secondary (welfare-
based) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for oxides of
nitrogen, oxides of sulfur, and particulate matter. The Integrated
Science Assessment (ISA), in conjunction with additional technical and
policy assessments, provides the scientific basis for EPA's decisions
on the adequacy of the current NAAQS and the appropriateness of
possible alternative standards. On January 28, 2016, EPA released a
separate ISA as part of an independent review for the primary (health-
based) NAAQS for oxides of nitrogen (EPA/600/R-15/068).

In addition, EPA also released a separate ISA to support the primary
NAAQS review for oxides of sulfur (EPA/600/R-17/451, December 13,
2017), and is currently reviewing the primary and non-ecological
secondary (e.g., visibility, climate, materials damage) NAAQS for
particulate matter.
    EPA is releasing this draft document to seek review by the Clean
Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) and the public (meeting date
and location to be specified in a separate Federal Register notice).
This draft document is not final, as described in EPA's information
quality guidelines, and it does not represent, and should not be
construed to represent, Agency policy or views. When revising the
document, EPA will consider any public comments submitted during the
public comment period specified in this notice.

DATES: The public comment period begins on June 26, 2018 and ends on
September 4, 2018. Comments must be received on or before September 4,
2018.

ADDRESSES: The ``Second External Review Draft Integrated Science
Assessment for Oxides of Nitrogen, Oxides of Sulfur, and Particulate
Matter--Ecological Criteria'' will be available primarily via the
internet on EPA's Integrated Science Assessment home page at https://www.epa.gov/isa/integrated-science-assessment-isa-oxides-nitrogen-and-sulfur-ecological or the public docket at http://www.regulations.gov,
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2013-0620 and Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-
0128. A limited number of CD-ROM copies will be available. Contact Ms.
Marieka Boyd by phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email:
[email protected] to request a CD-ROM, and please provide your name,
your mailing address, and the document title, ``Second External Review
Draft Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides of Nitrogen, Oxides of
Sulfur, and Particulate Matter--Ecological Criteria'' to facilitate
processing of your request.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on the public comment
period, contact the ORD Docket at the EPA Headquarters Docket Center;
phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email: [email protected].
    For technical information, contact Dr. Tara Greaver, NCEA; phone:
919-541-2435; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; or email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Information About the Document

    Section 108(a) of the Clean Air Act directs the Administrator to
identify certain pollutants which, among other things, ``cause or
contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to
endanger public health or welfare'' and to issue air quality criteria
for them. These air quality criteria are to ``accurately reflect the
latest scientific knowledge useful in indicating the kind and extent of
all identifiable effects on public health or welfare which may be
expected from the presence of [a] pollutant in the ambient air . . .''
Under section 109 of the Act, EPA is then to establish NAAQS for each
pollutant for which EPA has issued criteria. Section 109(d) of the Act
subsequently requires periodic review and, if appropriate, revision of
existing air quality criteria to reflect advances in scientific
knowledge on the effects of the pollutant on public health or welfare.
EPA is also required to review and, if appropriate, revise the NAAQS
(for more information on the NAAQS review process, see https://www.epa.gov/naaqs).
    Oxides of nitrogen, oxides of sulfur, and particulate matter are
three of six criteria pollutants for which EPA has established NAAQS.
Periodically, EPA reviews the scientific basis for these standards by
preparing an ISA (formerly called an Air Quality Criteria Document).
The ISA, in conjunction with additional technical and policy
assessments, provides the scientific basis for EPA's decisions on the
adequacy of the current NAAQS and the appropriateness of possible
alternative standards. The Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
(CASAC), an independent science advisory committee whose review and
advisory functions are mandated by Section 109(d)(2) of the Clean Air
Act, is charged (among other things) with independent scientific review
of the EPA's air quality criteria.
    On August 21, 2013 (78 FR 53452), EPA formally initiated its
current review of the air quality criteria for the ecological effects
of oxides of nitrogen and oxides of sulfur, and the associated
secondary (welfare-based) NAAQS, requesting the submission of recent
scientific information on specified topics. Similarly, on December 3,
2014 (79 FR 71764), EPA formally initiated its current review of the
air quality criteria for the particulate matter NAAQS. EPA conducted
two workshops--the first on March 4 to 6, 2014 for oxides of nitrogen
and oxides of sulfur (79 FR 8644, February 13, 2014), and the second on
February 11, 2015 (79 FR 71764, December 3, 2014) for particulate
matter--to gather input from invited scientific experts, both internal
and external to EPA, as well as from the public, regarding key science
and policy issues relevant to the review of the these secondary NAAQS.
Teleconference workshops with invited scientific experts, both internal
and external to EPA, were held on August 25, 26, and 27, 2015 (80 FR
48316, August 12, 2015) and June 13, 2016 (81 FR 89262, May 11, 2016),
to discuss initial draft materials prepared in the development of the
draft ISA.
    These science and policy issues were incorporated into EPA's
``Draft Integrated Review Plan for the Secondary National Ambient Air
Quality Standard for Oxides of Nitrogen and Oxides of Sulfur'' as well
as the ``Integrated Review Plan for the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards for Particulate Matter.'' The Draft Integrated Review Plan
(IRP) for oxides of nitrogen and oxides of sulfur was available for
public comment (80 FR 69220, Monday, November 9, 2015) and discussion
by the CASAC via publicly accessible teleconference consultation (80 FR
65223, February 10, 2016). The Draft IRP for particulate matter was
available for public comment (81 FR 2297, April 19, 2016) and
discussion by the CASAC via publicly accessible teleconference
consultation (81 FR 13362, March 14, 2016) prior to release of the
final document (81 FR 87933, December 6, 2016). The ``First External
Review Draft Integrated Science Assessment for Oxides of Nitrogen,
Oxides of Sulfur, and Particulate Matter--Ecological Criteria'' was
available for public comment (82 FR 15703, March 30, 2017) and
discussed by CASAC and the public (82 FR 15701, March 30, 2017).
    The ``Second External Review Draft Integrated Science Assessment
for Oxides of Nitrogen, Oxides of Sulfur, and Particulate Matter--
Ecological Criteria'' will be discussed at a public meeting for review
by CASAC and the public. In addition to the public comment period
announced in this notice, the public will have an opportunity to
address the CASAC. A separate Federal Register notice will inform the
public of the exact date and time of the CASAC meeting and of the
procedures for public participation.

II. How To Submit Technical Comments to the Docket at
www.regulations.gov

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2013-
0620 and Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0128, by one of the following
method 2nds:

     www.regulations.gov: Follow the online instructions for
submitting comments.
     Email: [email protected].
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket
Center (ORD Docket), Mail Code: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW,
Washington, DC 20460. The phone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Hand Delivery: The ORD Docket is located in the EPA
Headquarters Docket Center, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004.
    The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The phone
number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Deliveries are only
accepted during the docket's normal hours of operation, and special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. If you
provide comments by mail or hand delivery, please submit three copies
of the comments. For attachments, provide an index, number pages
consecutively with the comments, and submit an unbound original and
three copies.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-
2013-0620 and Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2014-0128. Please ensure that
your comments are submitted within the specified comment period.
Comments received after the closing date will be marked ``late,'' and
may only be considered if time permits. It is EPA's policy to include
all comments it receives in the public docket without change and to
make the comments available online at www.regulations.gov, including
any personal information provided, unless a comment includes
information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not
submit information through www.regulations.gov or email that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. The www.regulations.gov
website is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not
know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA
without going through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Docket: Documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other materials,
such as copyrighted material, are publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
on www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the ORD Docket in the EPA
Headquarters Docket Center.

    Dated: June 11, 2018.
Mary A. Ross,
Deputy Director, National Center for Environmental Assessment.
[FR Doc. 2018-13713 Filed 6-25-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 235 (Wednesday, December 7, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 76298]
[FR Doc No: 2011-31331]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2011-1053]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Old Brazos River, Freeport,
Brazoria County, TX

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District, has issued a
temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operation of the
Union Pacific Railroad Swing Span Bridge across the Old Brazos River,
mile 4.4, at Freeport, Brazoria County, Texas. This deviation allows
the bridge to remain closed to navigation for four days to replace lift
cables.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 6 a.m. December 16 through 6
p.m. December 19, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2011-1053 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2011-1053 in the
``Keyword'' box and then clicking ``Search''. They are also available
for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30),
U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, 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 Jim Wetherington, Bridge Management Specialist, Eighth
Coast Guard District, Bridge Administration Branch, telephone (504)
671-2128, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions
on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Union Pacific Railroad Company has
requested a temporary deviation from the published regulation for the
Union Pacific Railroad Bridge across the Old Brazos River in 33 CFR
117.975 which states: The draw of the Union Pacific railroad bridge,
mile 4.4 at Freeport, shall be maintained in the fully open position,
except for the crossing of trains or for maintenance.
    The requested deviation will allow the bridge to remain closed to
marine traffic from 6 a.m. December 16 through 6 p.m. December 19,
2011. The clearance in the closed-to-navigation position is 10.67 feet
above mean sea level (MSL).
    This deviation will allow the lift span of the bridge to remain in
the closed-to-navigation position in order for the cables to be
replaced and re-tensioned. This work is necessary due to an ongoing
bridge modification project, authorized by Coast Guard Bridge Permit
Amendment P (7a-09-8) dated September 14, 2010. The project involves
the replacement of the old swing span with the current vertical lift
span.
    Vessel traffic at the bridge site consists of commercial fishing
vessels, commercial dive boats and recreational boats. There are no
alternate routes. During the closure times, the process for tensioning
the cables will allow the bridge to be able to open for emergencies and
occasionally for the passage of vessels once the new cables are in
place and being tensioned. Current waterway users above the bridge are
aware of the closure and have not objected to this time period. Vessels
that do not require an opening can pass at any time.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated
time periods. This deviation from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: November 21, 2011.
David M. Frank,
Bridge Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2011-31331 Filed 12-6-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 73 (Friday, April 15, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 22587]
[FR Doc No: 2022-08066]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-94669; File Nos. SR-MIAX-2022-10, SR-EMERALD-2022-06]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Miami International Securities
Exchange, LLC and MIAX Emerald, LLC; Notice of Withdrawal of Proposed
Rule Changes To Establish Fees for the Exchanges' cToM Market Data
Products

April 11, 2022.
    On February 7, 2022, Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC
(``MIAX'') and MIAX Emerald, LLC (``MIAX Emerald'') (collectively, the
``Exchanges'') each filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to establish fees for, respectively, the MIAX
Complex Top of Market (``cToM'') and the MIAX Emerald cToM market data
products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The proposed rule changes were immediately effective upon filing
with the Commission pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act.\3\ On
February 22, 2022, the proposed rule changes were published for comment
in the Federal Register and, pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the
Act,\4\ the Commission: (1) Temporarily suspended the proposed rule
changes; and (2) instituted proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B) of
the Act \5\ to determine whether to approve or disapprove the proposed
rule changes.\6\ On March 30, 2022, the Exchanges withdrew the proposed
rule changes (SR-MIAX-2022-10, SR-EMERALD-2022-06).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A). A proposed rule change may take
effect upon filing with the Commission if it is designated by the
exchange as ``establishing or changing a due, fee, or other charge
imposed by the self-regulatory organization on any person, whether
or not the person is a member of the self-regulatory organization.''
15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(C).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 94262 (February 15,
2022), 87 FR 9733 (SR-MIAX-2022-10); and 94263 (February 15, 2022),
87 FR 9766 (SR-EMERALD-2022-06).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Matthew DeLesDernier,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022-08066 Filed 4-14-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P