[Federal Register: June 27, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 125)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 36426-36429]
[DOCID:fr27jn08-9]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2008-0180]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Patapsco River, Northwest and Inner Harbors,
Baltimore, MD

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone upon
certain waters of the Patapsco River, Northwest Harbor and Inner Harbor
during the movements of the historic sloop-of-war USS CONSTELLATION.
This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable
waters during two tows of the vessel in Baltimore, Maryland; one from
its berth at Baltimore's Inner Harbor to a berth at the South Locust
Point Marine Terminal, and the other from the South Locust Point Marine
Terminal to its berth at Baltimore's Inner Harbor. This action will
restrict

vessel traffic in portions of the Patapsco River, Northwest Harbor, and
Inner Harbor during these events.

DATES: This rule is effective from 5 p.m. on August 8, 2008 through 11
a.m. on August 10, 2008.

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-2008-0180 and are available online at http://
www.regulations.gov. This material is also available for inspection or
copying at two locations: 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 and the Commander,
U.S. Coast Guard Sector Baltimore, 2401 Hawkins Point Road, Building
70, Waterways Management Division, Baltimore, Maryland 21226-1791
between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, call Mr. Ronald Houck, at Coast Guard Sector Baltimore,
Waterways Management Division, at telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER> or
(410) 576-2693. If you have questions on viewing the docket, call Renee
V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    On April 15, 2008, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) entitled ``Safety Zone; Patapsco River, Northwest and Inner
Harbors, Baltimore, MD'' in the Federal Register (73 FR 20220). We
received no letters commenting on the proposed rule. No public meeting
was requested, and none was held.

Background and Purpose

    The USS CONSTELLATION Museum is planning to conduct a ceremony in
the Port of Baltimore, Maryland, involving the sloop-of-war USS
CONSTELLATION on Friday, August 8, 2008. Scheduled events include a
four-hour tow of the USS CONSTELLATION beginning at 6 p.m., from its
berth at Pier 1 Inner Harbor to the Locust Point Cruise Ship Terminal
berth at the South Locust Point Marine Terminal, with an onboard salute
with navy pattern cannon while the historic vessel is positioned off
Fort McHenry National Monument and Historic Site. A one-hour return tow
of the CONSTELLATION is scheduled for Sunday, August 10, 2008.
Departure from the Locust Point Cruise Ship Terminal will occur at 7
a.m. and arrival at Pier 1 Inner Harbor at 8 a.m. For both tows, the
historic Sloop-of-War USS CONSTELLATION will be towed ``dead ship,''
which means that the vessel will be underway without the benefit of
mechanical or sail propulsion. While berthed at the Locust Point Cruise
Ship Terminal, the vessel will participate in the commissioning
ceremonies for the U.S. Navy's new Arleigh Burke class Aegis guided
missile destroyer USS STERETT, DDG 104. The Coast Guard anticipates a
large recreational boating fleet during these events, scheduled on a
weekend during the summer in Baltimore, Maryland. Operators should
expect significant vessel congestion along the planned route.
    The purpose of this rule is to promote maritime safety and protect
participants and the boating public in the Port of Baltimore
immediately prior to, during, and after the scheduled event. The rule
will provide for a clear transit route for the participating vessels,
and provide a safety buffer around the participating vessels while they
are in transit. The rule will impact the movement of all vessels
operating upon certain waters of the Patapsco River, Northwest Harbor
and Inner Harbor.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

    The Coast Guard received no comments in response to the NPRM. No
public meeting was requested and none was held. A problem with the
number of the rule (.08 versus .05) was discovered and corrected.

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. There is little vessel traffic associated
with recreational boating and commercial fishing in the area during the
effective period.

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 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 or operators of vessels intending
to operate, remain or anchor within certain waters of the Patapsco
River, Northwest Harbor and Inner Harbor, in Baltimore, Maryland, from
5 p.m. through 11 p.m. on August 8, 2008 and from 6 a.m. through 11
a.m. on August 10, 2008. Because the zone is of limited size and
duration, it is expected that there will be minimal disruption to the
maritime community. Before the effective period, the Coast Guard will
issue maritime advisories widely available to users of the river and
harbors to allow mariners to make alternative plans for transiting the
affected areas. In addition, smaller vessels not constrained by their
draft, which are more likely to be small entities, may transit around
the safety zone.

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 calls 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 will not result in such an expenditure, we
do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not effect 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 does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
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 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.

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 Commandant Instruction M16475.lD
and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 5100.1, 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,
under the Instruction, that there are no factors in this case that
would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section 2.B.2 of
the Instruction. Therefore, this rule is categorically excluded, under
figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g.), of the Instruction, from further
environmental documentation. This rule establishes a safety zone.
    A final environmental analysis checklist and a final categorical
exclusion determination will be available in the docket where indicated
under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

0
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. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50
U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L.
107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T05-019 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T05-019  Safety Zone; Patapsco River, Northwest and Inner
Harbors, Baltimore, MD.

    (a) Definitions. For the purposes of this section:
    (1) Captain of the Port Baltimore, Maryland means the Commander,
Coast Guard Sector Baltimore or any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant,
or petty officer who has been authorized by the Captain of the Port
Baltimore, Maryland to act on his or her behalf.
    (2) USS CONSTELLATION ``turn-around'' participants means the USS
CONSTELLATION, its support craft and the accompanying towing vessels.
    (b) Location. The following area is a moving safety zone: all
waters within 200 yards ahead of, 100 yards outboard and 100 yards aft
of the historic Sloop-of-War USS CONSTELLATION, surface to bottom,
while operating in the Inner Harbor, the Northwest Harbor and the
Patapsco River.
    (c) Regulations:
    (1) The general regulations governing safety zones, found in Sec.
165.23, apply to the safety zone described in paragraph (b) of this
section.
    (2) With the exception of USS CONSTELLATION ``turn-around''
participants, entry into or remaining in this zone is prohibited,
unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Baltimore, Maryland.
    (3) Persons or vessels requiring entry into or passage through the
moving safety zone must first request authorization from the Captain of
the Port Baltimore, Maryland to seek permission to transit the area.
The Captain of the Port Baltimore, Maryland can be contacted at
telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>. The Coast Guard vessels enforcing this
section can be contacted on Marine Band Radio VHF Channel 16 (156.8
MHz). Upon being

hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard vessel by siren, radio, flashing light, or
other means, the person or vessel shall proceed as directed. If
permission is granted, all persons or vessels must comply with the
instructions of the Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland, and
proceed at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course while
within the zone.
    (d) Enforcement. The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted in the patrol
and enforcement of the zone by Federal, State and local agencies.
    (e) Effective periods. This section will be effective from 5 p.m.
on August 8, 2008 and through 11 a.m. on August 10, 2008.

    Dated: June 12, 2008.
Brian D. Kelley,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Baltimore, Maryland.
 [FR Doc. E8-14601 Filed 6-26-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 5 (Tuesday, January 8, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 1290]
[FR Doc No: C1-2012-30886]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68455; File No. SR-CHX-2012-14]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change
Relating to Telemarketing Rules

December 18, 2012.

Correction

    In notice document 2012-30886 appearing on pages 76141-76145 in the
issue of December 26, 2012, make the following correction:
    On page 76145, in the third column, in the 12th line, ``January 14,
2013'' should read ``January 16, 2013''.

[FR Doc. C1-2012-30886 Filed 1-7-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505-01-D


[Federal Register: December 4, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 232)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 63697-63701]
[DOCID:fr04de09-39]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2009-0502; FRL-9088-9]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Kentucky:
Revisions to the Kentucky State Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Kentucky on December 31,
2008, for the purpose of establishing transportation conformity
criteria and procedures related to interagency consultation, and
enforceability of certain transportation related control and mitigation
measures for the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 4, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2009-0502, by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the online instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: ``EPA-R04-OAR-2009-0502,'' Air Quality Modeling and
Transportation Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Ms. Amanetta Somerville, Air Quality
Modeling and Transportation Section, Air Planning Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional
Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding
federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-
2009-0502. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail, information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured

and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the
EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, 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 http://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all
possible, you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's
official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30,
excluding federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amanetta Somerville, Air Quality
Modeling and Transportation Section, Air Planning Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. Ms. Somerville's telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. She can
also be reached via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Transportation Conformity
II. Background for this Action
III. Proposed Action
    A. Federal Requirements
    B. Clarksville-Hopkinsville Conformity SIP
    C. Huntington-Ashland Conformity SIP
    D. Louisville Conformity SIP
    E. Northern Kentucky-Cincinnati Conformity SIP
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Transportation Conformity

    Transportation conformity (hereafter referred to as ``conformity'')
is required under section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) to
ensure that federally supported highway, transit projects, and other
activities are consistent with (``conform to'') the purpose of the SIP.
Conformity currently applies to areas that are designated
nonattainment, and to areas that have been redesignated to attainment
after 1990 (maintenance areas) with plans developed under section 175A
of the Act, for the following transportation related criteria
pollutants: ozone, particulate matter (PM2.5 and
PM10), carbon monoxide, and nitrogen dioxide.
    Conformity to the purpose of the SIP means that transportation
activities will not cause new air quality violations, worsen existing
violations, or delay timely attainment of the relevant criteria
pollutants, also known as national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS). The transportation conformity regulation is found in 40 CFR
Part 93 and provisions related to conformity SIPs are found in 40 CFR
51.390.

II. Background for This Action

A. Federal Requirements

    EPA promulgated the Federal transportation conformity criteria and
procedures (``Conformity Rule'') on November 24, 1993 (58 FR 62188).
Among other things, the rule required states to address all provisions
of the conformity rule in their SIPs frequently referred to as
``conformity SIPs.'' Under 40 CFR 51.390, most sections of the
conformity rule were required to be copied verbatim. States were also
required to tailor all or portions of the following three sections of
the conformity rule to meet their state's individual circumstances: 40
CFR 93.105, which addresses consultation procedures; 40 CFR
93.122(a)(4)(ii), which addresses written commitments to control
measures that are not included in a metropolitan planning
organization's (MPO's) transportation plan and transportation
improvement program that must be obtained prior to a conformity
determination, and the requirement that such commitments, when they
exist, must be fulfilled; and 40 CFR 93.125(c), which addresses written
commitments to mitigation measures that must be obtained prior to a
project-level conformity determination, and the requirement that
project sponsors must comply with such commitments, when they exist.
    On August 10, 2005, the ``Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient
Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users'' (SAFETEA-LU) was signed
into law. SAFETEA-LU revised section 176(c) of the CAA transportation
conformity provisions. One of the changes streamlines the requirements
for conformity SIPs. Under SAFETEA-LU, states are required to address
and tailor only three sections of the rule in their conformity SIPs: 40
CFR 93.105, 40 CFR 93.122(a)(4)(ii), and, 40 CFR 93.125(c), described
above. In general, states are no longer required to submit conformity
SIP revisions that address the other sections of the conformity rule.
These changes took effect on August 10, 2005, when SAFETEA-LU was
signed into law.

B. SIP Submission

    On December 31, 2008, the Commonwealth of Kentucky, through the
Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet's Department of Air Quality (KY
DAQ), submitted the Commonwealth's transportation conformity and
consultation interagency rule to EPA as an addition to the SIP. The
interagency consultation procedures for the transportation conformity
partners are outlined in the document Transportation Conformity: A
Guide for Interagency Consultation, which is referenced in the Kentucky
transportation conformity rule.
    The Commonwealth of Kentucky developed its consultation rule based
on the elements contained in 40 CFR 93.105, 93.122(a)(4)(ii), and
93.125(c). As a first step, the Commonwealth worked with the existing
transportation planning organization's interagency committee that
included representatives from Kentucky's air quality agency, Kentucky
Department of Transportation (DOT), U.S. DOT (i.e., Federal Highway
Administration--Kentucky Division, Federal Transit Administration), the
MPOs of the maintenance and nonattainment areas of Kentucky, and EPA.
The interagency committee met regularly and drafted the consultation
rules considering elements in 40 CFR 93.105, 93.122(a)(4)(ii), and
93.125(c), and integrated the local procedures and processes into the
rule. The consultation process developed in this rule is for the
Commonwealth of Kentucky.

C. Section Description of Nonattainment Areas

    Currently, in the Commonwealth of Kentucky, there are 3 maintenance
areas and 1 nonattainment area for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, and
3 nonattainment areas for the 1997 annual PM2.5 standard.
The conformity SIP has been developed to include all necessary partners
in each of the areas listed.

Below provides the details for all of these areas.
1. Clarksville-Hopkinsville Conformity SIP
    Effective June 15, 2004, EPA designated Christian County, Kentucky
and Montgomery County, Tennessee in the bi-state Clarksville-
Hopkinsville area, as nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard
(69 FR 23858). On January 25, 2006, EPA redesignated the Kentucky
portion of the Clarksville-Hopkinsville nonattainment area to
attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (71 FR 4047). In a separate
action, the Tennessee portion of this area was also redesignated from
nonattainment to attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.
    The Clarksville Urbanized Area Metropolitan Planning Organization
(CUAMPO) is the MPO for most of the bi-state Clarksville-Hopkinsville
1997 8-hour ozone maintenance area. CUAMPO's planning boundary includes
most of Christian County, Kentucky and Montgomery County, Tennessee in
the Clarksville-Hopkinsville area. The areas outside the MPO's planning
boundary in Christian County, Kentucky and Montgomery County, Tennessee
are considered ``donut'' \a\ areas for the purposes of implementing
transportation conformity in this area. Per the Transportation
Conformity Rule, the MPO's conformity determination is not complete
without a regional analysis that considers the projects in the MPO area
as well as the donut areas that are within the nonattainment/
maintenance area. For the purposes of implementing the 1997 8-hour
ozone transportation conformity requirements, CUAMPO serves as the lead
agency for the preparation, consultation, and distribution of the
conformity determinations. The ``donut'' areas are included in CUAMPO's
travel demand model and CUAMPO coordinated the inputs for the model
with the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet and the Tennessee DOT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \a\ Donut areas are geographic areas outside a metropolitan
planning area boundary, but inside the boundary of a nonattainment
or maintenance area that contains any part of a metropolitan area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Christian County, Kentucky, which is a part of the Clarksville-
Hopkinsville bi-state maintenance area, does not have a previous
conformity SIP. The state of Tennessee will establish conformity
procedures for Montgomery County, Tennessee as part of the Clarksville-
Hopkinsville maintenance area in their individual conformity SIP. The
SIP revision includes the conformity procedures for the Christian
County, Kentucky portion of the Clarksville-Hopkinsville bi-state
maintenance area.
2. Huntington-Ashland
    Effective June 15, 2004, EPA designated Boyd County in Kentucky;
and Cabell and Wayne counties in West Virginia as nonattainment for the
1997 8-hour ozone standard. This area is known as the bi-state
Huntington-Ashland 1997 8-hour ozone area. The bi-state Huntington-
Ashland 1997 8-hour ozone area was designated nonattainment under
Subpart 1 of the Act and as such is referred to as a ``basic'' 8-hour
ozone nonattainment area. On August 3, 2007, EPA published the
redesignation of the Kentucky portion of the Huntington-Ashland (Boyd
County) 8-hr ozone nonattainment area to attainment in the Federal
Register (72 FR 43172). In a separate action, the West Virginia portion
of this area was also redesignated from nonattainment to attainment for
the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.
    Effective April 5, 2005, EPA designated the whole counties of Boyd
County in Kentucky, Cabell and Wayne County in West Virginia, and
Lawrence and Scioto County in Ohio, as nonattainment for the 1997
PM2.5 annual standard. Partial counties of Lawrence County
in Kentucky; Mason County in West Virginia; and Adams and Gallia
Counties in Ohio were also designated nonattainment for the 1997
PM2.5 annual standard as part of the Huntington-Ashland
area. The current designation status of the Huntington-Ashland area is
nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5 annual standard.
    There are two MPOs that are responsible for transportation planning
for areas within the Huntington-Ashland 8-hour ozone maintenance and
PM2.5 nonattainment area. The Five County Area Development
District (FIVCO) is the MPO responsible for transportation planning in
Boyd County, Kentucky. KYOVA is the other MPO. KYOVA's planning
boundary includes Lawrence County, Ohio; and Cabell and Wayne Counties
in West Virginia. The partial counties of Lawrence County, Kentucky;
Adams and Gallia Counties in Ohio; and Mason County, West Virginia are
not within either MPO's planning boundary, and are considered ``donut''
areas for the purposes of implementing transportation conformity in
this area. Per the Transportation Conformity Rule, the MPO's conformity
determination is not complete without a regional analysis that
considers the projects in the MPO area(s) as well as the donut areas
that are within the nonattainment/maintenance area. For the purposes of
implementing the 1997 8-hour ozone and the 1997 PM2.5 annual
transportation conformity requirements, FIVCO serves as the lead agency
for the preparation, consultation, and distribution of the conformity
determinations for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard for Boyd County.
FIVCO and KYOVA serve as co-leads for the preparation, consultation,
and distribution of the conformity determinations for the 1997
PM2.5 annual standard for the entire Huntington Ashland
nonattainment area for the 1997 PM2.5 annual standard.
    Boyd County and the partial county of Lawrence, Kentucky which are
a part of the Huntington-Ashland area do not have a previous conformity
SIP. The states of Ohio and West Virginia will establish conformity
procedures for their respective state in their individual conformity
SIPs for Lawrence County, Ohio; and Cabell and Wayne Counties in West
Virginia; and the partial counties of Adams and Gallia in Ohio; and
Mason County, West Virginia. The SIP revision at issue now includes the
conformity procedures for both the partial county of Lawrence and Boyd
County, Kentucky in its entirety, for the Huntington-Ashland area.
3. Louisville Conformity SIP
    Effective June 15, 2004, EPA designated Clark and Floyd Counties in
Indiana; and Bullitt, Jefferson, and Oldham Counties in Kentucky, in
the bi-state Louisville area, as nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour
ozone standard. On July 5, 2007, EPA redesignated the Kentucky portion
of the Louisville nonattainment area to attainment for the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS (72 FR 36601). In a separate action, the Indiana portion of
this area was also redesignated from nonattainment to attainment for
the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.
    Effective April 5, 2005, EPA designated Madison Township of
Jefferson County; and Clark and Floyd Counties in Indiana; and Bullitt
and Jefferson Counties in Kentucky, in the bi-state Louisville area, as
nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5 annual standard. The
current designation status of the Louisville bi-state area is
nonattainment for the 1997 PM2.5 annual standard.
    The Kentuckiana Regional Planning & Development Agency (KIPDA) is
the MPO for the entire bi-state Louisville 1997 8-hour ozone area, and
for most of the bi-state Louisville 1997 PM2.5 annual area.
KIPDA's planning boundary includes Clark and Floyd Counties in Indiana;
and Bullitt, Jefferson and Oldham Counties in Kentucky. Madison

Township of Jefferson County, Indiana is not within the KIPDA planning
boundary, and thus is considered a ``donut'' area for the purposes of
implementing transportation conformity in this area. Per the
Transportation Conformity Rule, the MPO's conformity determination is
not complete without a regional analysis that considers the projects in
the MPO area as well as the donut areas that are within the
nonattainment/maintenance area. For the purposes of implementing the
1997 8-hour ozone and the PM2.5 annual transportation
conformity requirements, KIPDA serves as the lead agency for the
preparation, consultation, and distribution of the conformity
determinations. KIPDA coordinated with the Indiana DOT for travel-
related information for Madison Township.
    Bullitt, Jefferson, and Oldham Counties in Kentucky which are a
part of the Louisville bi-state area do not have a previous conformity
SIP. The State of Indiana will establish conformity procedures for the
counties that make up the Indiana portion of the bi-state Louisville
area in their individual conformity SIP. The SIP revision at issue now
includes the conformity procedures for the Bullitt, Jefferson, and
Oldham Counties in Kentucky which are a part of the Louisville bi-state
area.
4. Northern Kentucky-Cincinnati Conformity SIP
    Effective June 15, 2004, EPA designated the Ohio counties of
Butler, Clermont, Clinton, Hamilton and Warren; the Kentucky counties
of Boone, Campbell and Kenton; and a portion of Dearborn County in
Indiana in the tri-state Northern Kentucky-Cincinnati area, as
nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. The tri-state
Northern Kentucky-Cincinnati 1997 8-hour ozone area was designated
nonattainment under Subpart 1 of the CAA and as such is referred to as
a ``basic'' 8-hour ozone nonattainment area.
    Effective April 5, 2005, EPA designated the Ohio counties of
Butler, Clermont, Clinton, Hamilton and Warren; the Kentucky counties
of Boone, Campbell and Kenton; and a portion of Dearborn County in
Indiana in the tri-state Northern Kentucky-Cincinnati area, as
nonattainment for the PM2.5 standard. The current
designation status of both the tri-state Northern Kentucky-Cincinnati
1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5 areas is nonattainment.
    The Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana Regional Council of Governments (OKI)
is the MPO for most of the Northern Kentucky-Cincinnati 1997 8-hour
ozone and PM2.5 areas. OKI's planning boundary includes the
Ohio counties of Butler, Clermont, Hamilton and Warren; the Kentucky
counties of Boone, Campbell and Kenton; and Dearborn County, Indiana.
Clinton County, Ohio is not within the OKI's planning boundary, and
thus is considered a ``donut'' area for the purposes of implementing
transportation conformity in this area. Per the Transportation
Conformity Rule, the MPO's conformity determination is not complete
without a regional analysis that considers the projects in the MPO area
as well as the donut areas that are within the nonattainment/
maintenance area. For the purposes of implementing the 1997 8-hour
ozone and 1997 PM2.5 annual transportation conformity
requirements, OKI served as the lead agency for the preparation,
consultation, and distribution of the conformity determinations. OKI
coordinated with the Ohio DOT for travel-related information for
Clinton County.
    Boone, Campbell and Kenton Counties in Kentucky which are a part of
the Northern Kentucky-Cincinnati tri-state area do not have a previous
conformity SIP. The States of Indiana and Ohio will establish
conformity procedures for the counties that make up the Indiana and
Ohio portions of the Northern Kentucky-Cincinnati area in their
individual conformity SIPs. The SIP revision at issue now includes the
conformity procedures for Boone, Campbell and Kenton Counties in
Kentucky which are a part of the Northern Kentucky-Cincinnati tri-state
area.

III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the Kentucky SIP revision consisting of
the transportation conformity section. This addition consists of
transportation conformity criteria and procedures related to
interagency consultation and enforceability of certain transportation-
related control measures and mitigation measures. The intended effect
is to establish the transportation conformity criteria and procedures
in the Kentucky SIP.
    On December 31, 2008, the Commonwealth of Kentucky, through the
Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet's KY DAQ, submitted the State's
transportation conformity and consultation interagency rule to EPA as
an addition to the SIP. The Kentucky transportation conformity rule
establishes procedures for interagency consultation for existing and
future nonattainment and maintenance areas for certain transportation-
related pollutants.
    The Commonwealth of Kentucky developed its consultation rule based
on the elements contained in 40 CFR 93.105, 93.122(a)(4)(ii), and
93.125(c). As a first step, the Commonwealth worked with the existing
transportation planning organization's interagency committee that
included representatives from the State air quality agency, State DOT,
Federal Highway Administration--Kentucky Division, Federal Transit
Administration, the MPOs of the maintenance and nonattainment areas of
Kentucky, and EPA. The interagency committee met regularly and drafted
the consultation rules considering elements in 40 CFR 93.105,
93.122(a)(4)(ii), and 93.125(c), and integrated the local procedures
and processes into the rule. The consultation process developed in this
rule is for the Commonwealth of Kentucky. On July 29, 2008, KY DAQ held
a public hearing for the transportation conformity rulemaking.
    EPA has evaluated this SIP and has determined that the Commonwealth
has met the requirements of Federal transportation conformity rule as
described in 40 CFR Part 51, Subpart T and 40 CFR Part 93, Subpart A.
KY DAQ has satisfied the public participation and comprehensive
interagency consultation requirement during development and adoption of
the consultation procedures at the local level. Therefore, EPA is
proposing to approve the rule as an addition to the Kentucky SIP. EPA's
rule requires the states to develop their own processes and procedures
for interagency consultation among the Federal, state, and local
agencies, and resolution of conflicts meeting the criteria in 40 CFR
93.105. The SIP revision must include processes and procedures to be
followed by the MPO, state DOT, and U.S. DOT in consulting with the
state and local air quality agencies and EPA before making
transportation conformity determinations. The transportation conformity
SIP addition must also include processes and procedures for the state
and local air quality agencies and EPA to coordinate the development of
applicable SIPs with MPOs, state DOTs, and U.S. DOT. Kentucky's
revision includes these required elements.
    EPA has reviewed the submittal to assure consistency with the CAA
as amended by SAFETEA-LU and EPA regulations (40 CFR Part 93 and 40 CFR
51.390) governing state procedures for transportation conformity and
interagency consultation and has concluded that the submittal is

approvable. Details of our review are set forth in a technical support
document (TSD), which has been included in the docket for this action.
Specifically, in the TSD, we identify how the submitted procedures
satisfy our requirements under 40 CFR 93.105 for interagency
consultation with respect to the development of transportation plans
and programs, SIPs, and conformity determinations, the resolution of
conflicts, and the provision of adequate public consultation, and our
requirements under 40 CFR 93.122(a)(4)(ii) and 93.125(c) for
enforceability of control measures and mitigation measures.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: November 20, 2009.
Beverly H. Banister,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. E9-28970 Filed 12-3-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P