[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 185 (Tuesday, September 28, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 53571-53576]
[FR Doc No: 2021-20619]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2020-0567; FRL-9001-01-R9]

Air Plan Approval; Hawaii; Interstate Transport for the 2015
Ozone NAAQS

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a state implementation plan (SIP) submission from the State of
Hawaii addressing requirements in the Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act'')
regarding interstate transport for the 2015 ozone national ambient air
quality standards (NAAQS). Hawaii submitted a SIP revision on November
12, 2019 addressing the CAA provision prohibiting any source or other
type of emissions activity in one state from emitting any air pollutant
in amounts that will contribute significantly to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in any other state (``the good
neighbor provision''). The EPA is proposing to approve Hawaii's good
neighbor SIP revision for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by October 28, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2020-0567 at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments at Regulations.gov. Once
submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov.
The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not
submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must
be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered
the official comment and should include discussion of all points you
wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web,
cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission
methods, or if you need assistance in a language other than English or
if you are a person with disabilities who needs a reasonable
accommodation at no cost to you, please contact the person identified
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public
comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and
general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Kelly, EPA Region IX, (415) 972-
3856<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you need assistance in a language other
than English or if you are a person with disabilities who needs a
reasonable accommodation at no cost to you, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

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

I. Background

    On October 1, 2015, the EPA promulgated a revision to the ozone
NAAQS (``2015 ozone NAAQS''), lowering the level of both the primary
and secondary standards to 0.070 parts per million (ppm).\1\ Section
110(a)(1) of the CAA requires states to submit, within 3 years after
promulgation of a new or revised standard, SIP submissions meeting the
applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2).\2\ One of these
applicable requirements is found in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I),
otherwise known as the good neighbor provision, which generally
requires SIPs to contain adequate provisions to prohibit in-state
emissions activities from having certain adverse air quality effects on
other states due to interstate transport of pollution. There are two
so-called ``prongs'' within CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). A SIP for a
new or revised NAAQS must contain adequate provisions prohibiting any
source or other type of emissions activity within the state from
emitting air pollutants in amounts that will: Significantly contribute
to nonattainment of the NAAQS in another state (prong 1); or interfere
with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state (prong 2). The EPA and
states must give independent significance to prong 1 and prong 2 when
evaluating downwind air quality problems under CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone, Final
Rule, 80 FR 65292 (October 26, 2015). Although the level of the
standard is specified in the units of ppm, ozone concentrations are
also described in parts per billion (ppb). For example, 0.070 ppm is
equivalent to 70 ppb.
    \2\ SIP revisions that are intended to meet the applicable
requirements of section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA are often
referred to as infrastructure SIPs and the applicable elements under
110(a)(2) are referred to as infrastructure requirements.
    \3\ See North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 909-911 (2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We note that the EPA has addressed the interstate transport
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to prior
ozone NAAQS in several regional regulatory actions, including the
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), which addressed interstate
transport with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS as well as the 1997 and
2006 fine particulate matter standards,\4\ the CSAPR Update, and, most
recently, the Revised CSAPR Update for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS.5 6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011).
    \5\ The Revised Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update for the
2008 Ozone NAAQS (86 FR 23054; April 30, 2021) was signed by the EPA
Administrator on March 15, 2021 and responded to the remand of the
CSAPR Update (81 FR 74504; October 26, 2016) and the vacatur of a
separate rule, the CSAPR Close-Out (83 FR 65878; December 21, 2018)
by the D.C. Circuit. Wisconsin v. EPA, 938 F.3d 303 (D.C. Cir.
2019); New York v. EPA, 781 F. App'x. 4 (D.C. Cir. 2019).
    \6\ In 2019, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals remanded the
CSAPR Update to the extent it failed to require upwind states to
eliminate their significant contribution by the next applicable
attainment date by which downwind states must come into compliance
with the NAAQS, as established under CAA section 181(a). 938 F.3d
303, 313.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Through the development and implementation of CSAPR and other
regional rulemakings pursuant to the good neighbor provision,\7\ the
EPA,

working in partnership with states, developed the following four-step
interstate transport framework to address the requirements of the good
neighbor provision for the ozone NAAQS: (1) Identify downwind air
quality problems; (2) identify upwind states that impact those downwind
air quality problems sufficiently such that they are considered
``linked'' and therefore warrant further review and analysis; (3)
identify the emissions reductions necessary (if any), applying a
multifactor analysis, to prevent linked upwind states identified in
step 2 from contributing significantly to nonattainment or interfering
with maintenance of the NAAQS at the locations of the downwind air
quality problems; and (4) adopt permanent and enforceable measures
needed to achieve those emissions reductions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ In addition to the CSAPR rulemakings, other regional
rulemakings addressing ozone transport include the NOX
SIP Call, 63 FR 57356 (October 27, 1998), and the Clean Air
Interstate Rule (CAIR), 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA has released several documents containing information
relevant to evaluating interstate transport with respect to the 2015
ozone NAAQS. First, on January 6, 2017, the EPA published a notice of
data availability (NODA) with preliminary interstate ozone transport
modeling with projected ozone design values for 2023 using a 2011 base
year platform, on which we requested comment.\8\ In the NODA, the EPA
used the year 2023 as the analytic year for this preliminary modeling
because that year aligns with the expected attainment year for Moderate
ozone nonattainment areas for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.\9\ On October 27,
2017, we released a memorandum (``2017 memorandum'') containing updated
modeling data for 2023, which incorporated changes made in response to
comments on the NODA, and noted that the modeling may be useful for
states developing SIPs to address good neighbor obligations for the
2008 ozone NAAQS.\10\ On March 27, 2018, we issued a memorandum
(``March 2018 memorandum'') noting that the same 2023 modeling data
released in the 2017 memorandum could also be useful for identifying
potential downwind air quality problems with respect to the 2015 ozone
NAAQS at step 1 of the four-step interstate transport framework. The
March 2018 memorandum also included the then newly available
contribution modeling results to assist states in evaluating their
impact on potential downwind air quality problems for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS under step 2 of the interstate transport framework. The EPA
subsequently issued two additional memoranda in August and October
2018, providing additional information to states developing good
neighbor SIPs for the 2015 ozone NAAQS concerning, respectively,
potential contribution thresholds that may be appropriate to apply in
step 2 of the framework, and considerations for identifying downwind
areas that may have problems maintaining the standard at step 1 of the
framework.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Notice of Availability of the Environmental Protection
Agency's Preliminary Interstate Ozone Transport Modeling Data for
the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS), 82 FR
1733 (January 6, 2017).
    \9\ 82 FR 1735 (January 6, 2017).
    \10\ See Information on the Interstate Transport State
Implementation Plan Submissions for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standards under Clean Air Act Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), October 27, 2017, available in the docket for
this action or at https://www.epa.gov/interstate-air-pollution-transport/interstate-air-pollution-transport-memos-and-notices.
    \11\ See Analysis of Contribution Thresholds for Use in Clean
Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) Interstate Transport State
Implementation Plan Submissions for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standards, August 31, 2018) (``August 2018
memorandum''), and Considerations for Identifying Maintenance
Receptors for Use in Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
Interstate Transport State Implementation Plan Submissions for the
2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards, October 19, 2018,
available in the docket for this action or at https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/memo-and-supplemental-information-regarding-interstate-transport-sips-2015-ozone-naaqs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 30, 2020, in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the
Revised CSAPR Update, the EPA released and accepted public comment on
updated 2023 modeling that used the 2016 emissions platform developed
under the EPA/Multi-Jurisdictional Organization (MJO)/state
collaborative project as the primary source for the base year and
future year emissions data.\12\ On March 15, 2021, the EPA signed the
final Revised CSAPR Update using the same modeling released at
proposal.\13\ Although Hawaii relied in part on the modeling included
in the March 2018 memorandum to develop its SIP submission, the EPA now
proposes to primarily rely on the updated and newly available 2016 base
year modeling in evaluating this submission. By using the updated
modeling results, EPA is using the most current and technically
appropriate information as the primary basis for this proposed
rulemaking. EPA's independent analysis, which also evaluated historical
monitoring data, recent ambient air monitoring design values, and
emissions trends, found that such information provides additional
support and further substantiates the results of the 2016 base year
modeling as the basis for this proposed rulemaking. Section II of this
document and the Air Quality Modeling technical support document (TSD)
included in the docket for this proposed action contain additional
detail on this modeling.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See 85 FR 68964, 68981. The results of this modeling are
included in a spreadsheet in the docket for this action. The
underlying modeling files are available for public review in the
docket for the Revised CSAPR Update (EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0272).
    \13\ 82 FR 23054 (April 30, 2021).
    \14\ See ``Air Quality Modeling Technical Support Document for
the Proposed Revised Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update,'' 85 FR
68964 (October 30, 2020), available in the docket for this action or
at https://www.epa.gov/csapr/revised-cross-state-air-pollution-rule-update. This TSD was originally developed to support EPA's proposed
action in the Revised CSAPR Update, as relating to outstanding good
neighbor obligations under the 2008 ozone NAAQS. While developed in
this separate context, the data and modeling outputs, including
interpolated design values for 2021, may be evaluated with respect
to the 2015 ozone NAAQS and used in support of this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the CSAPR, CSAPR Update, and the Revised CSAPR Update, the EPA
used a threshold of one percent of the NAAQS to determine whether a
given upwind state was ``linked'' at step 2 of the interstate transport
framework and would, therefore, contribute to downwind nonattainment
and maintenance sites identified in step 1. If a state's impact did not
equal or exceed the one percent threshold, the upwind state was not
``linked'' to a downwind air quality problem, and the EPA, therefore,
concluded the state would not significantly contribute to nonattainment
or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in the downwind states.
However, if a state's impact equaled or exceeded the one percent
threshold, the state's emissions were further evaluated in step 3, to
determine what, if any, emissions might be deemed ``significant'' and,
thus, must be eliminated under the good neighbor provision. The EPA is
proposing to rely on the one percent threshold (i.e., 0.070 ppb) for
the purpose of evaluating Hawaii's contributions to nonattainment or
maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in downwind areas.
    Several D.C. Circuit court decisions have addressed the issue of
the relevant analytic year for the purposes of evaluating ozone
transport air-quality problems. On September 13, 2019, the D.C. Circuit
issued a decision in Wisconsin v. EPA, remanding the CSAPR Update to
the extent that it failed to require upwind states to eliminate their
significant contribution by the next applicable attainment date by
which downwind states must come into compliance with the NAAQS, as
established under CAA section 181(a).\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 938 F.3d 303, 313.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 19, 2020, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision in Maryland v.
EPA

that cited the Wisconsin decision in holding that the EPA must assess
the impact of interstate transport on air quality at the next downwind
attainment date, including Marginal area attainment dates, in
evaluating the basis for the EPA's denial of a petition under CAA
section 126(b).\16\ The court noted that ``section 126(b) incorporates
the Good Neighbor Provision,'' and, therefore, ``the EPA must find a
violation [of section 126] if an upwind source will significantly
contribute to downwind nonattainment at the next downwind attainment
deadline. Therefore, the agency must evaluate downwind air quality at
that deadline, not at some later date.'' \17\ The EPA interprets the
court's holding in Maryland as requiring the Agency, under the good
neighbor provision, to assess downwind air quality by the next
applicable attainment date, including a Marginal area attainment date
under section 181 for ozone nonattainment.\18\ The Marginal area
attainment date for the 2015 ozone NAAQS is August 3, 2021.\19\
Historically, the EPA has considered the full ozone season prior to the
attainment date as supplying an appropriate analytic year for assessing
good neighbor obligations. While this would be 2020 for an August 2021
attainment date (which falls within the 2021 ozone season running from
May 1 to September 30), in this circumstance, when the 2020 ozone
season is wholly in the past, it is appropriate to focus on 2021 in
order to address good neighbor obligations to the extent possible by
the 2021 attainment date. The EPA does not believe it would be
appropriate to select an analytical year that is wholly in the past,
because the agency interprets the good neighbor provision as forward
looking.\20\ Consequently, in this proposed action the EPA will use the
analytical year of 2021 to evaluate Hawaii's good neighbor obligations
with respect to the 2015 ozone NAAQS.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Maryland v. EPA, 958 F.3d 1185, 1203-04 (D.C. Cir. 2020).
    \17\ Id. at 1204.
    \18\ We note that the court in Maryland did not have occasion to
evaluate circumstances in which EPA may determine that an upwind
linkage to a downwind air quality problem exists at steps 1 and 2 of
the interstate transport framework by a particular attainment date,
but for reasons of impossibility or profound uncertainty the Agency
is unable to mandate upwind pollution controls by that date. See
Wisconsin, 938 F.3d at 320. The D.C. Circuit noted in Wisconsin that
upon a sufficient showing, these circumstances may warrant
flexibility in effectuating the purpose of the good neighbor
provision. Such circumstances are not at issue in the present
action.
    \19\ CAA section 181(a); 40 CFR 51.1303; 83 FR 25776 (June 4,
2018, effective Aug. 3, 2018).
    \20\ See 85 FR at 68981; see also Wisconsin, 938 F.3d at 322.
    \21\ EPA recognizes that by the time final action is taken with
respect to this SIP submission, the 2021 ozone season will be wholly
in the past. As discussed below, the available modeling information
indicates that our analysis would not change even using 2023 as the
analytic year. The 2023 modeling results are included in the ``Ozone
Design Values and Contributions Revised CSAPR Update.xlsx'',
included in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. HDOH SIP Submission

    The Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH) submitted its good neighbor
SIP submission for the 2015 ozone NAAQS by letter dated November 12,
2019.\22\ The submittal included documentation of public participation
proceedings to meet the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2) and 40
CFR 51.102. The EPA determined that the submittal was complete on
November 13, 2019.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Letter dated November 12, 2019, from Bruce Anderson, Ph.D.,
Director of Health, HDOH, to Mike Stoker, Regional Administrator,
U.S. EPA, Region IX.
    \23\ Letter dated November 13, 2019, from Elizabeth J. Adams,
Acting Director, Air Division, EPA Region 9, to Bruce Anderson,
HDOH.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    HDOH concluded that Hawaii does not significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in
any other state, citing the distance from Hawaii to the continental
U.S, the relatively small quantity of ozone precursor emissions in
Hawaii, and an evaluation of ozone transport using trajectory analysis
of emissions from Hawaii to the continental U.S.
    In the HDOH submittal, the State notes that Hawaii is approximately
2,390 miles from the nearest state, California. HDOH also points to
Hawaii's 2016 Annual Summary of Air Quality Data to note that Hawaii is
in attainment for all NAAQS and compares Hawaii's ozone precursor
emissions to those of California and Nevada. Hawaii's analysis states
that emissions of ozone precursors, nitrogen oxides (NOX)
and volatile organic compounds (VOC), from Hawaii were 7.57 and 6.28
percent, respectively, of California's emissions in 2011 and 7.95 and
5.21 percent in 2014.\24\ Cumulatively, emissions of ozone precursors
from Hawaii in 2011 and 2014 were 6.97 and 6.54 percent, respectively,
of California's emissions. Furthermore, HDOH points out that the
State's ozone precursor emissions have exhibited a downward trend,
having decreased since the 2011 National Emissions Inventory (NEI), and
notes that their emissions continue to be relatively low compared to
California. To demonstrate that Hawaii's ozone precursor emissions
would not significantly contribute to interstate transport, even if
California and Hawaii were directly adjacent to each other, the
submittal compares Hawaii's ozone precursor emissions to those of
Nevada, which shares a border with California, but does not
significantly contribute to interstate transport to any other
state.\25\ Emissions of NOX and VOCs from Hawaii were 51.24
and 49.28 percent, respectively, of Nevada's emissions in 2014.
Cumulatively, emissions of ozone precursors from Hawaii in 2014 were
50.35 percent of Nevada's emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ 2014 data was the most recent available at the time Hawaii
prepared its submittal.
    \25\ Hawaii cited EPA's 2015 Ozone NAAQS Interstate Transport
Assessment Design Values and Contributions spreadsheet, released in
a memorandum from Peter Tsirigotis, to Regional Air Division
Directors, Region 1-10, dated March 27, 2018. See ``2015 Ozone NAAQS
Interstate Transport Assessment Design Values and Contributions'' at
https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/memo-and-supplemental-information-regarding-interstate-transport-sips-2015-ozone-naaqs. File name:
Updated_2023_modeling_dvs_collective_contributions.xlsx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Appendix 1 of the HDOH submittal provides trajectories for
emissions from Hawaii's Campbell Industrial Park, which includes a
refinery and power generation facility, based on 2010 meteorological
data during January and July. HDOH found that a comparison between the
trajectory modeling results and ozone monitoring data supports the
conclusion that it is highly unlikely that Hawaii is currently
impacting nonattainment or maintenance areas of other states and that
it is highly unlikely to do so in the future.

III. EPA Evaluation

    As explained in Section I of this document, in consideration of the
holdings in Wisconsin and Maryland, the EPA's four-step interstate
transport analysis relies on 2021 as the relevant attainment year for
evaluating Hawaii's good neighbor obligations with respect to the 2015
ozone NAAQS.\26\ In step 1, we identify locations where the Agency
expects there to be nonattainment or maintenance receptors for the 2015
8-hour ozone NAAQS in the 2021 analytic future year. Where the EPA's
analysis shows that a monitoring site does not fall under the
definition of a

nonattainment or maintenance receptor, that site is excluded from
further analysis under the EPA's four-step interstate transport
framework. For monitoring sites that are identified as nonattainment or
maintenance receptors in 2021, we proceed to the next step of our four-
step framework by identifying the upwind state's contribution to those
receptors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ We recognize that Hawaii and other states may have been
influenced by EPA's 2018 guidance memos (issued prior to the
Wisconsin and Maryland decisions) in making good neighbor
submissions that relied on EPA's modeling of 2023. When there are
intervening changes in relevant law or legal interpretation of CAA
requirements, states are generally free to withdraw, supplement,
and/or re-submit their SIP submissions with new analysis (in
compliance with CAA procedures for SIP submissions). While Hawaii
has not done this, as explained in this section, the independent
analysis EPA has conducted at its discretion confirms that the
state's submission in this instance is ultimately approvable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA's approach to identifying ozone nonattainment and
maintenance receptors in this proposed action is consistent with the
approach used in the CSAPR, the CSAPR Update, and the Revised CSAPR
Update. The EPA's approach gives independent consideration to both the
``contribute significantly to nonattainment'' and the ``interfere with
maintenance'' prongs of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), consistent with the
D.C. Circuit's direction in North Carolina.\27\ Further, in its
decision on the remand of CSAPR from the Supreme Court in the EME Homer
City case, the D.C. Circuit confirmed that the EPA's approach to
identifying maintenance receptors in CSAPR comported with the court's
prior instruction to give independent meaning to the ``interfere with
maintenance'' prong in the good neighbor provision.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ 531 F.3d at 910-911 (holding that the EPA must give
``independent significance'' to each prong of CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)).
    \28\ EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118, 136
(D.C. Cir. 2015) (EME Homer City II).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For purposes of this proposed action, the EPA identifies
nonattainment receptors as those monitoring sites that are projected to
have average design values that exceed the NAAQS and that are also
measuring nonattainment based on the most recent monitored design
values.\29\ This approach is consistent with prior transport
rulemakings, such as the CSAPR Update, where the EPA defined
nonattainment receptors as those areas that both currently monitor
nonattainment and that the EPA projects will be in nonattainment in the
future analytic year.\30\ In addition, in this proposed action, the EPA
identifies a receptor to be a ``maintenance'' receptor for purposes of
defining interference with maintenance, consistent with the method used
in CSAPR and upheld by the D.C. Circuit in EME Homer City
II.31 32
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Average projected design values are based on the average
design value during the five-year base monitoring period (i.e.,
2014-2016, 2015-2017 and 2016-2018), as discussed in the Final
Revised Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update for the 2008 Ozone
NAAQS (86 FR 23054, April 30, 2021) and further clarified in the Air
Quality Modeling Technical Support Document for the Final Revised
Cross State Air Pollution Rule Update, which is available in the
docket for that rulemaking EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0272.
    \30\ See 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016). The Revised CSAPR
Update also used this approach. See 86 FR 23054 (April 30, 2021).
This same concept, relying on both current monitoring data and
modeling to define nonattainment receptors, was also applied in
CAIR. See 70 FR 25241 (January 14, 2005); see also North Carolina,
531 F.3d at 913-14 (affirming as reasonable EPA's approach to
defining nonattainment in CAIR).
    \31\ See 795 F.3d at 136.
    \32\ Maximum projected design values are based on the maximum
design value during the five-year base monitoring period from 2014
to 2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Recognizing that nonattainment receptors are also, by definition,
maintenance receptors, the EPA often uses the term ``maintenance-only''
to refer to receptors that are not also nonattainment receptors.
Consistent with the methodology described above, monitoring sites with
a projected maximum design value that exceeds the NAAQS, but with a
projected average design value that is below the NAAQS, are identified
as maintenance-only receptors. In addition, those sites that are
currently measuring ozone concentrations below the level of the
applicable NAAQS but are projected to be nonattainment based on the
average design value and that, by definition, are projected to have a
maximum design value above the standard are also identified as
maintenance-only receptors.
    To evaluate future air quality in steps 1 and 2 of the interstate
transport framework, the EPA is using the 2016 and 2023 base case
emissions developed under the EPA/MJO/state collaborative emissions
modeling platform project as the primary source for base year and 2023
future year emissions data for this proposed rule. Because this
platform does not include emissions for 2021, the EPA developed an
interpolation technique based on modeling for 2023 and measured ozone
data to determine ozone concentrations for 2021. To estimate average
and maximum design values for 2021, the EPA first performed air quality
modeling for 2016 and 2023 to obtain design values in 2023. The 2023
design values were then coupled with the corresponding 2016 measured
design values to estimate design values in 2021. Details on the
modeling, including the interpolation methodology, can be found in the
Air Quality Modeling TSD, in the docket for this proposed action.
    To quantify the contribution of emissions from specific upwind
states on 2021 8-hour design values for the identified downwind
nonattainment and maintenance receptors, the EPA first performed
nationwide, state-level ozone source apportionment modeling for 2023.
The source apportionment modeling provided contributions to ozone from
precursor emissions of anthropogenic NOX and VOCs in each
individual state. The modeled contributions were then applied in a
relative sense to the 2021 average design value to estimate the
contributions in 2021 from each state to each receptor. Details on the
source apportionment modeling and the methods for determining
contributions in 2021 are in the Air Quality Modeling TSD in the
docket.
    The EPA generally does not consider modeling to be necessary for
isolated states like Hawaii for the purposes of evaluating interstate
transport. Therefore, Hawaii was not included in the modeling domain,
and the apportionment modeling analysis described above does not
calculate emissions contributions from Hawaii to the downwind
nonattainment and maintenance areas identified in step 1 in the
contiguous United States. In lieu of apportionment modeling, at step 2
of the interstate transport framework, a proper and well-supported
weight of evidence approach can provide sufficient information for
purposes of addressing Hawaii's interstate transport for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS. In a weight of evidence analysis, no single piece of information
is by itself dispositive of the issue. Instead, the total weight of all
the evidence taken together is used to evaluate significant
contribution to nonattainment or interference with maintenance of the
2015 ozone NAAQS in another state. In the weight of evidence analysis
detailed below, we consider (1) the distance between sources in Hawaii
and the nonattainment and maintenance receptors identified in step 1;
(2) the relative magnitude of state-wide emissions of ozone precursors;
(3) an evaluation of prevailing wind direction that may impact of
transport of emissions from Hawaii during the summer ozone season; and
(4) a comparison of Hawaii's impact on California to California's
impact on Connecticut.
    The state with the nearest nonattainment receptors to Hawaii is
California, based on the modeling supporting the Revised CSAPR
Update.\33\ The nearest California

nonattainment receptor is the Modesto-14th Street monitor, located in
Stanislaus County, which is 2,384 miles from the easternmost edge of
Hawaii.\34\ The next closest nonattainment receptors outside of
California are located in Douglas County, Jefferson County, and Larimer
County in Colorado, and Davis County and Salt Lake County in Utah.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Projected ozone 2021 receptor concentrations and interstate
contributions are contained in spreadsheet titled,
ozone_design_values_contributions_proposed_revised_csapr_update.xlsx.
 The spreadsheet and accompanying TSD, Air Quality Modeling TSD for
the Proposed Revised Cross-State Air Pollution Rule Update, are
contained in the docket for the Proposed Revised CSAPR Update,
Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2020-0272, and have also been included in
the docket for this action. In total, in California 22 counties have
nonattainment receptors and 2 counties have maintenance-only
receptors.
    \34\ Determination of the nearest nonattainment and maintenance-
only receptors was based on final 2020 Ozone Design values. Final
2020 design value reports can be found at https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values#report. California has numerous
other nonattainment receptors in the following counties: Calaveras,
El Dorado, Fresno, Imperial, Kern, Los Angeles, Madera, Mariposa,
Merced, Nevada, Orange, Placer, Riverside, Sacramento, San
Bernardino, San Diego, San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Tulare, and
Tuolumne.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The nearest California maintenance-only receptor to Hawaii is the
Tracy-Airport monitor, located in San Joaquin County, which is 2,363
miles from the easternmost edge of Hawaii.\35\ The next closest
maintenance-only receptors outside of California are in Yuma County,
Arizona; Clark County, Nevada; Dona Ana County, New Mexico; and Weber
County, Utah.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ Monitor ID: 60773005.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Sheer distance alone makes it unlikely that emissions from Hawaii
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance in these
states. However, we also compare the emissions of ozone precursors from
Hawaii to those of other western states.\36\ Hawaii's emissions of
ozone precursors are substantially lower than emissions from other
western states, as shown in Table 1.\37\ The table represents the most
recent data available on emissions of ozone precursors. NEI data, which
is released every three years, is not yet available for 2020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ Emissions estimates downloaded from the EPA's National
Emissions Inventory, datasets: 2017NEI_Apr2020, 2014 NEI Final V2,
on January 4 and 5, 2021, and saved as Excel spreadsheet files in
the docket for this action.
    \37\ In this analysis, we focus primarily on 2017 emissions. The
most recent available. The Docket for this document contains
additional information about Event Emissions, which are comprised of
wildfire, prescribed fire and agricultural burning.

                                                         Table 1--Emissions of Ozone Precursors
                                                                   [Tons per year] \a\
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Pollutant                                               NOX                                             VOC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          Year                                 2011            2014            2017            2011            2014            2017
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HI......................................................          54,398          43,061          40,809          38,781          26,593          31,079
AZ......................................................         241,993         215,643         163,779         167,951         120,100         141,160
CA......................................................         724,362         546,495         466,555         617,658         539,159         527,313
NV......................................................          99,234          84,746          69,539          68,526          50,601          68,547
OR......................................................         147,112         125,922         115,886         152,142         103,811         126,818
UT......................................................         178,586         172,488          90,975         217,880         176,188         135,231
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Data lists all point, nonpoint, onroad and nonroad emissions from EPA's National Emissions Inventory downloaded from EPA's Emissions Information
  System, files 2017NEI_Apr2020, 2014 NEI Final V2, 2011 NEI V2.
\a\ Biogenic emission from plants and soil and wildfire emissions have been excluded from this data.

    The relative magnitude of Hawaii's emissions compared to Arizona,
California, Nevada, Oregon, and Utah, coupled with the distance between
Hawaii and these states, further indicates that Hawaii is unlikely to
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance in
California, or any other state.
    The next step in our analysis is to look at prevailing wind
direction in Hawaii. In the trajectory analysis in Appendix 1 of the
State's submittal, HDOH concluded that the predominant transport
patterns in January and July of 2010--which are from the northeast to
the southwest (i.e., generally opposite the direction from Hawaii to
the location of nonattainment and maintenance-only receptors in the
U.S.)--support the conclusion that Hawaii is unlikely to contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with maintenance in California or other
western states.\38\ While HDOH only analyzed wind trajectories in
January and July of 2010, Hawaii's 2017 Regional Haze SIP contains 2013
and 2015 wind rose plots, which also illustrate that the predominant
wind transport patterns year-round blow from northeast to
southwest.\39\ This is further verified by the National Weather
Service, which lists persistent trade winds, the prevailing easterly
winds \40\ that circle the earth near the equator as a result of the
earth's rotation, from the northeast as a feature of Hawaii's
climate.\41\ Based on the State's trajectory analysis and wind rose
plots from its 2017 Regional Haze SIP, along with information from the
National Weather Service, we expect emissions from Hawaii would
initially travel westwards before turning eastwards on the vast
majority of days. This would make the pathway to the continental U.S.
considerably longer than the more than 2,000 miles separating the
continental U.S. from Hawaii. These trajectories further indicate that
Hawaii is unlikely to contribute to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance in California or any other state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ The U.S. EPA has also relied on this trajectory analysis in
approving Hawaii's State Implementation Plan submittals addressing
interstate transport for the 2008 ozone NAAQS (84 FR 40266,
September 13, 2019, see the proposed rule at 84 FR 6736, February
28, 2019), and the 1997 ozone NAAQS (77 FR 47530, October 9, 2012).
See Technical Support Document, Evaluation of 2011 Hawaii
Infrastructure SIP for 1997 Ozone; 1997 Particulate Matter; and 2006
Particulate Matter NAAQS, U.S. EPA, Region 9, March 2012.
    \39\ Appendix C, 5 Year Regional Haze Progress Report for the
Federal Implementation Plan, Hawaii Department of Health, October
2017. The EPA approved the Regional Haze Progress Report on May 13,
2019 (84 FR 14634).
    \40\ In meteorology, wind direction is described as the
direction from which the wind is blowing (i.e., the Hawaiian trade
winds blow from the northeast to the southwest), see https://www.weather.gov/cae/weatherterms.html.
    \41\ U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Association (NOAA). ``Honolulu, HI.'' Pacific Region
Headquarters, NOAA's National Weather Service, https://www.weather.gov/hfo/climate_summary, accessed on June 28, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, we compare the impact of Hawaii on California, with
California's impact on Connecticut, because the distance between Hawaii
and California, and Connecticut and California, is roughly equivalent.
As previously mentioned, we have modeled contributions among the
continental states in the Revised CSAPR Update. In terms of distance,
Hawaii is slightly farther to nonattainment and maintenance-only
receptors in California, at 2,384 and 2,363 miles, respectively, than
California is to nonattainment and maintenance only

receptors in Connecticut, which are 2,263 and 2,285 miles away,
respectively.\42\ California's contribution to these monitors is 0.03
ppb to both the nonattainment and maintenance-only receptors in 2021,
which represents the maximum contribution of California to any
nonattainment and maintenance-only receptor in Connecticut. This is
well below the threshold of 1 percent of the NAAQS that would link the
two states, triggering further review in steps 3 and 4 of the
interstate transport analysis framework. Given that the distance
between California and Connecticut is comparable to the distance
between Hawaii and California, and ozone precursor emissions from
California are more than 10 times larger than ozone precursor emissions
from Hawaii, because California's contributions to Connecticut are well
below the 1 percent threshold, it is reasonable to conclude that
Hawaii's contribution to California would also be below the 1 percent
threshold. Therefore, it is not necessary to evaluate potential
NOX reductions as part of step 3 in the EPA's four-step
interstate transport framework.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ Nonattainment Receptor at Monitor ID 90019003, Fairfield,
CT and Maintenance-Only Receptor at Monitor ID 90090027, New Haven,
CT.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the weight of evidence, including (1) the distance between
Hawaii and California, (2) the relative magnitude of ozone precursor
emissions from Hawaii, (3) the predominant wind direction of the trade
winds in Hawaii, and (4) the comparison to the impact of ozone
precursor emissions from California on Connecticut, we propose to find
that Hawaii will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or
interfere with maintenance in any other state.

IV. The EPA's Proposed Action

    Based on our review of the interstate transport SIP submission from
HDOH to address the 2015 ozone NAAQS and the additional analysis
discussed in this document, we propose to find that emissions from
Hawaii will not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS in any other state.
Accordingly, we propose to approve the HDOH Submittal as satisfying the
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, 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, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve 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 Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogenoxides, Volatile organic compounds, Interstate
transport, Infrastructure SIP.

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

    Dated: September 18, 2021.
Deborah Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2021-20619 Filed 9-27-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: June 9, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 109)]
[Notices]
[Page 27328-27329]
[DOCID:fr09jn09-70]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2009-N-0664]

Hematology and Pathology Devices Panel of the Medical Devices
Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    This notice announces a forthcoming meeting of a public advisory
committee of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The meeting will
be open to the public.
    Name of Committee: Hematology and Pathology Devices Panel of the
Medical Devices Advisory Committee.
    General Function of the Committee: To provide advice and
recommendations to the agency on FDA's regulatory issues.
    Date and Time: The meeting will be held on July 17, 2009, from 8
a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Location: Hilton Washington DC North/Gaithersburg, Salons A, B, and
C, 620 Perry Pkwy., Gaithersburg, MD.
    Contact Person: Louise E. Magruder, Center for Devices and
Radiological Health (HFZ-440), Food and Drug Administration, 2098
Gaither Rd., Rockville, MD 20850,<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or FDA Advisory Committee Information
Line, 1-800-741-8138<PHONE_NUMBER> in the Washington, DC area), code
3014512515. Please call the Information Line for up-to-date information
on this meeting. A notice in the Federal Register about last minute
modifications that impact a previously announced advisory committee
meeting cannot always be published quickly enough to provide timely
notice. Therefore, you should always check the agency's Web site and
call the appropriate advisory committee hot line/phone line to learn
about possible modifications before coming to the meeting.
    Agenda: The committee will discuss and make recommendations on a
(Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendment) Waiver application for the
HemoCue WBC Analyzer, sponsored by HemoCue, Inc. The HemoCue WBC system
is indicated for use for quantitative determination of white blood cell
(WBC) counts in capillary or venous whole blood and can be used in
clinical laboratories and at point-of-care settings.
    FDA intends to make background material available to the public no
later than 2 business days before the meeting. If FDA is unable to post
the background material on its Web site prior to the meeting, the
background material will be made publicly available at the location of
the advisory committee meeting, and the background material will be
posted on FDA's Web site after the meeting. Background material is
available at http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/acmenu.htm, click on
the year 2009 and scroll down to the appropriate advisory committee
link.
    Procedure: Interested persons may present data, information, or
views, orally or in writing, on issues pending before the committee.
Written submissions may be made to the contact person on or before July
2, 2009. Oral presentations from the public will be scheduled between
approximately 8:15 a.m. and 9:15 a.m. Those desiring to make formal
oral presentations should notify the contact person and submit a brief
statement of the general nature of the evidence or arguments they wish
to present, the names and addresses of proposed participants, and an
indication of the approximate time requested to make their presentation
on or before June 24, 2009. Time allotted for each presentation may be
limited. If the number of registrants requesting to speak is greater
than can be reasonably accommodated during the scheduled open public
hearing session, FDA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers
for the scheduled open public hearing session. The contact person will
notify interested persons regarding their request to speak by June 25,
2009.
    Persons attending FDA's advisory committee meetings are advised
that the agency is not responsible for providing access to electrical
outlets.
    FDA welcomes the attendance of the public at its advisory committee
meetings and will make every effort to accommodate persons with
physical disabilities or special needs. If you require special
accommodations due to a disability, please contact AnnMarie Williams,
Conference Management Staff, at<PHONE_NUMBER>, at least 7 days in
advance of the meeting.
    FDA is committed to the orderly conduct of its advisory committee
meetings. Please visit our Web site at http://www.fda.gov/oc/advisory/
default.htm for procedures on public conduct during advisory committee
meetings.
    Notice of this meeting is given under the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app. 2).

    Dated: June 2, 2009.
Randall W. Lutter,
Deputy Commissioner for Policy and Planning.
[FR Doc. E9-13373 Filed 6-8-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160-01-S


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 185 (Tuesday, September 24, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 58533-58534]
[FR Doc No: 2013-23172]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project Nos. 2280-017, 2343-084, 2459-245, 2516-057, 2517-036, 3494-
091, 3671-086, 2391-046, 2425-052, and 2509-046]

FirstEnergy Generation, LLC, Allegheny Energy Supply Company,
LLC, and Green Valley Hydro, LLC, Seneca Generation, LLC, Lake Lynn
Generation, LLC, All Dams Generation, LLC, and PE Hydro Generation,
LLC; Notice of Application for Transfer of Licenses, and Soliciting
Comments and Motions to Intervene

September 18, 2013.
    On September 4, 2013, a transfer of license application was filed
to include the following projects:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Project numbers             Transferors         Transferees       Project names          Locations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
P-2280-017....................  FirstEnergy         Seneca Generation,  Kinzua Pumped      Allegheny River,
                                 Generation, LLC.    LLC.                Storage.           Warren County, PA
P-2343-084....................  Allegheny Energy    PE Hydro            Millville........  Shenandoah River,
                                 Supply Company,     Generation, LLC.                       Jefferson County, WV
                                 L.L.C..
P-2459-245....................  Allegheny Energy    Lake Lynn           Lake Lynn........  Cheat River a
                                 Supply Company,     Generation, LLC.                       tributary of the
                                 L.L.C..                                                    Monongahela River,
                                                                                Monongalia County,
                                                                                WV & Fayette County,
                                                                                PA
P-2516-057....................  Allegheny Energy    PE Hydro            Dam No. 4 Hydro    Potomac River,
                                 Supply Company,     Generation, LLC.    Station.           Berkeley and
                                 L.L.C..                                                    Jefferson counties,
                                                                                WV
P-2517-036....................  Allegheny Energy    PE Hydro            Dam No. 5 Hydro    Potomac River,
                                 Supply Company,     Generation, LLC.    Station.           Berkeley County, WV
                                 L.L.C..
P-3494-091....................  Allegheny Energy    All Dams            Allegheny Lock &   Allegheny River,
                                 Supply Company,     Generation, LLC.    Dam No. 6.         Armstrong County, PA
                                 L.L.C..
P-3671-086....................  Allegheny Energy    All Dams            Allegheny Lock &   Allegheny River,
                                 Supply Company,     Generation, LLC.    Dam No. 5.         Armstrong County, PA
                                 L.L.C..
P-2391-046....................  Green Valley        PE Hydro            Warren...........  Shenandoah River,
                                 Hydro, LLC.         Generation, LLC.                       Warren County, VA
P-2425-052....................  Green Valley        PE Hydro            Luray and Newport  Shenandoah River,
                                 Hydro, LLC.         Generation, LLC.   Developments.....   Page County, VA
P-2509-046....................  Green Valley        PE Hydro            Shenandoah.......  Shenandoah River,
                                 Hydro, LLC.         Generation, LLC.                       Page County, VA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Applicants seek Commission approval to transfer the licenses for
the above projects from the transferors to the transferees.
    Applicants' Contact: For Transferors: Mr. Morgan E. Parke,
FirstEnergy Service Company, 76 South Main Street, Akron, OH 44308-
1890,<PHONE_NUMBER> and Mr. John A. Whittaker, IV, Winston & Strawn
LLP, 1700 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20006-3817,<PHONE_NUMBER>. For
Transferees: Mr. Scott Carver, LS Power Development, LLC, Two Tower
Center, 11th Floor, East Brunswick, NJ 08816,<PHONE_NUMBER> and Mr.
James B. Vasile, Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, 1919 Pennsylvania Avenue
NW., Suite 800, Washington, DC 20006,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Patricia W. Gillis<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Deadline for filing comments and motions to intervene: 30 days from
the issuance date of this notice by the Commission. Comments and
motions to intervene may be filed electronically via the Internet. See
18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site
under http://

www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can submit brief
comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior registration, using the
eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You
must include your name and contact information at the end of your
comments. If unable to be filed electronically, documents may be paper-
filed. To paper-file, an original plus seven copies should be mailed
to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426. More information about this
project can be viewed or printed on the eLibrary link of Commission's
Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the
docket number(s) (P-2280, P-2343, P-2459, P-2516, P-2517, P-3494, P-
3671, P-2391, P-2425, or P-2509) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

    Dated: September 18, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-23172 Filed 9-23-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: July 23, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 142)]
[Notices]
[Page 42840]
[DOCID:fr23jy08-81]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-58172; File No. SR-ODD-2008-03]

Canadian Derivatives Clearing Corporation; Order Approving
Accelerated Distribution of an Amended Options Disclosure Document

July 16, 2008.
    On July 14, 2008, the Canadian Derivatives Clearing Corporation
(``CDCC''), on behalf of the Bourse de Montr[eacute]al, Inc. (``Bourse
de Montr[eacute]al''), submitted to the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to Rule 9b-1 under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\1\ five definitive copies of an amended
options disclosure document (``ODD'') that describes the risks and
characteristics of options traded on the Bourse de Montr[eacute]al.\2\
The CDCC has revised the ODD to, among other things, reflect the CDCC's
current automatic exercise parameters for equity and bond options, to
update the discussion of the treatment of adjustments in the terms of
equity options with respect to stock splits, stock dividends or other
stock distributions, and to update the discussion of Canadian federal
income tax considerations applicable to non-residents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 17 CFR 240.9b-1.
    \2\ The Commission initially reviewed the ODD in 1984. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 21365 (October 2, 1984), 49 FR
39400 (October 5, 1984) (File No. SR-ODD-84-1). Since then, the
Commission has reviewed several amendments to the ODD. See, e.g.,
Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 51124 (February 2, 2005), 70 FR
6740 (February 8, 2005) (File No. SR-ODD-2004-03) (amending the ODD
to reflect, among other things, the name change from the S&P/TSE 60
Index to the S&P/TSX 60 Index and to add an Annex to the ODD setting
forth the holidays and early closings of the Bourse de
Montr[eacute]al); 44333 (May 21, 2001), 66 FR 29193 (May 29, 2001)
(File No. SR-ODD-00-04) (amending the ODD to reflect, among other
things, changes to the structure of the Canadian equity markets and
to provide a discussion of Enhanced Capital Marketing); 37569
(August 14, 1996), 61 FR 43281 (August 21, 1996) (File No. SR-ODD-
96-01) (amending the ODD to reflect, among other things, the name
change from TCO to CDCC); 29033 (April 1, 1991), 56 FR 14407 (April
9, 1991) (File No. SR-ODD-91-1) (amending the ODD to include, among
other things, references to Toronto Stock Exchange 35 Composite
Index options); 24480 (May 19, 1987), 52 FR 20179 (May 29, 1987)
(File No. SR-ODD-87-2) (amending the ODD to include, among other
things, a discussion of Government of Canada Treasury Bill Price
Index options); and 22349 (August 21, 1985), 50 FR 34956 (August 28,
1985) (File No. SR-ODD-85-1) (amending the ODD to include, among
other things, a discussion of the risks and uses of stock index and
bond options).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 9b-1 under the Act provides that an options market must file
five preliminary copies of an amended ODD with the Commission at least
30 days prior to the date when definitive copies of the amended ODD are
furnished to customers, unless the Commission determines otherwise,
having due regard to the adequacy of the information disclosed and the
public interest and protection of investors.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ This provision is intended to permit the Commission either
to accelerate or extend the time period in which definitive copies
of a disclosure document may be distributed to the public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has reviewed the amended ODD and finds, having due
regard to the adequacy of the information disclosed, that it is
consistent with the protection of investors and in the public interest
to allow the distribution of the amended ODD as of the date of this
order.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Rule 9b-1 under the Act provides that the use of an ODD
shall not be permitted unless the options class to which the
document relates is the subject of an effective registration
statement on Form S-20 under the Securities Act of 1933 or is exempt
from such registration. On April 7, 2008, the Commission declared
effective the CDCC's most recent Post-Effective Amendment to its
Form S-20 registration statement. See File No. 002-69458.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Rule 9b-1 under the Act,\5\
that the distribution of the revised ODD (SR-ODD-2008-03) as of the
date of this is order, is approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 17 CFR 240.9b-1.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(39)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-16761 Filed 7-22-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


 [Federal Register Volume 78, Number 80 (Thursday, April 25, 2013)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 24378-24379] [FR Doc No: C1-2013-06093]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 98

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2012-0934; FRL-9789-1] RIN 2060-AR52

2013 Revisions to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule and Proposed  Confidentiality Determinations for New or Substantially Revised Data  Elements

Correction

    In proposed rule document 2013-06093, appearing on pages 19802- 19877 in the issue of Tuesday, April 2, 2013, make the following  correction:

Sec.  98.173  Calculating GHG emissions. [Corrected]

    On page 19854, the equation titled as ``(Eq. Q-5)'' is corrected to  read as set forth below:

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP25AP13.000

[FR Doc. C1-2013-06093 Filed 4-24-13; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 1505-01-D


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 44 (Friday, March 6, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 12082]
[FR Doc No: 2015-05231]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2015-0079]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Oakland Inner Harbor, Alameda,
CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of deviation from drawbridge regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule that governs the Alameda County highway drawbridge
at High Street across the Oakland Inner Harbor, mile 6.0, at Alameda,
CA. The deviation is necessary to allow the bridge owner to make
necessary repairs and rehabilitation of the bridge. This deviation
allows single leaf operation of the double leaf, bascule-style
drawbridge during the deviation period.

DATES: This deviation is effective without actual notice from March 6,
2015 through 6:30 p.m. on April 27, 2015. For the purposes of
enforcement, actual notice will be used from 9:30 a.m. on March 2,
2015, until March 6, 2015.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2015-0079], is
available at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the
``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the
line associated with this deviation. You may also visit the Docket
Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call or email David H. Sulouff, Chief, Bridge
Section, Eleventh Coast Guard District; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the docket,
call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-
366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Alameda County has requested a temporary
change to the operation of the Alameda County highway bridge at High
Street, mile 6.0, over Oakland Inner Harbor, at Alameda, CA. The
drawbridge navigation span provides horizontal clearance of 244 feet
between pier fenders. During single leaf operation, horizontal
clearance is reduced to approximately 100 feet. The drawbridge provides
a vertical clearance of 16 feet above Mean High Water in the closed-to-
navigation position and unlimited vertical clearance in the open-to-
navigation position. As required by 33 CFR 117.181, the draw opens on
signal; except that, from 8 a.m. to 9 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.
Monday through Friday except Federal holidays, the draw need not be
opened for the passage of vessels. However, the draw shall open during
the above closed periods for vessels which must for reasons of safety,
move on a tide or slack water, if at least two hours notice is given.
Navigation on the waterway is commercial, recreational, emergency and
law enforcement vessels.
    During the deviation period, the drawspan will be operated with
only one leaf between 9:30 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday,
while the opposite leaf will be secured in the closed-to-navigation
position for rehabilitation. A two hour advance notice will be required
from vessel operators for a double leaf opening. At night and on
weekends, the drawbridge will resume the normal double leaf operation,
when work is not being performed on the bridge. This temporary
deviation has been coordinated with the waterway users. No objections
to the proposed temporary deviation were raised.
    Vessels able to pass through the bridge in the closed position may
do so at any time. The bridge will be able to open for emergencies and
there is no immediate alternate route for larger vessels to pass. The
Coast Guard will also inform the waterway users via our Local and
Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the change in operating schedule for
the bridge so vessel operators can arrange their transits to minimize
any impact caused by the temporary deviation.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the effective
period of this temporary deviation. This deviation from the operating
regulations is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: February 17, 2015.
D.H. Sulouff,
District Bridge Chief, Eleventh Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2015-05231 Filed 3-5-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 127 (Tuesday, July 5, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39748-39750]
[FR Doc No: 2022-14223]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket Number USCG-2022-0551]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulation; Ohio River, Marietta, OH

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a special local regulation for
all navigable waters of the Ohio River between mile markers 171 and
173. The special local regulation is needed to protect regatta
participants, the public, and the marine environment from potential
hazard created by powerboat races. This special local regulation
establishes a Patrol Commander and restricts movement and anchoring of
spectator and non-participant vessels during the time of the event.

DATES: This rule is effective from 9:30 a.m. on July 9, 2022 through 4
p.m. on July 10, 2022.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2022-0551 in the search box and click ``Search.'' Next, in the Document
Type column, select ``Supporting & Related Material.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email MST2 Justin Selan, Marine Safety Unit Huntington, U.S.
Coast Guard;<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because we must establish the special local
regulation by July 9, 2022 and lack sufficient time to request public
comments and respond to these comments before the special local
regulation must be established.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be contrary to the public interest because immediate
action is needed to respond to the potential safety hazards associated
with the Marietta River Front Roar taking place on the Ohio River
between mile marker 171 and mile marker 173.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70041; 33

CFR 1.05-1. The Captain of the Port Ohio Valley (COTP) has determined
that potential hazards associated with Marietta River Front Roar
starting July 9, 2022, will be a safety concern for anyone on the Ohio
River from mile marker 171 to mile marker 173. This rule is needed to
protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable
waters within the special local regulation for the duration of the
powerboat races.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule established a special local regulation from 9:30 a.m.
through 5 p.m. on July 9, 2022, and 9:30 a.m. through 4 p.m. on July
10, 2022. The special local regulation will cover all navigable waters
between mile markers 171 and 173 on the Ohio River. The duration of the
regulated area is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the
marine environment in these navigable waters for the duration of the
powerboat races. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the
regulated area without obtaining permission from the designated
representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we
discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this
rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size and
location of the special local regulation. This rule involes a special
local regulation lasting less than a week and covering a limited area
of 3 nautical miles. In addition, vessel traffic will be able to reach
out to the safety boat to coordinate safe passage through the special
local regulation which will impact a 3 mile stretch on the Ohio River.
The Coast Guard will publish a Local Notice to Mariners (LNMs), and
issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners (BNMs) via VHF-FM marine channel
16 about the regulated area.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard 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.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    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.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, 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.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and
Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of
a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a
special local regulation lasting from 9:30 a.m. through 5 p.m. on July
9, 2022 and 9:30 a.m. through 4 p.m. on July 10, 2022 that will limit
access of the Ohio River from mile marker 171 to mile marker 173. It is
categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L61 of
Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

    Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 100 as follows:

PART 100--SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS

0
1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70041; 33 CFR 1.05-1.

0
2. Add Sec.  100.T08-0551 to read as follows:

Sec.  100.T08-0551  Marietta River Front Roar, Ohio River, Marietta,
OH.

    (a) Regulated area. The regulations in this section apply to the
following area: all navigable waters of the Ohio River from mile marker
171 to mile marker 173 near Marietta Riverfront Park Marietta, OH.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section:
    Designated representative means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander
(PATCOM), including a Coast Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other
officer operating a Coast Guard vessel and a Federal, State, and local
officer designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port Ohio Valley
(COTP) in the enforcement of the regulations in this section.
    Participant means all persons and vessels registered with the event
sponsor as a participants in the race.
    (c) Regulations. (1) The Coast Guard may patrol the event area
under the direction of a designated Coast Guard Patrol Commander. The
Patrol Commander may be contacted on Channel 16 VHF-FM (156.8 MHz) by
the call sign ``PATCOM.''
    (2) All persons and vessels not registered with the sponsor as
participants or official patrol vessels are considered spectators. The
``official patrol vessels'' consist of any Coast Guard, state or local
law enforcement and sponsor provided vessels assigned or approved by
the Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District, to patrol the event.
    (3) Spectator vessels desiring to transit the regulated area
described in paragraph (a) of this section may do so only with prior
approval of the Patrol Commander and when so directed by that officer
and will be operated at a no wake speed in a manner which will not
endanger participants in the event or any other craft.
    (4) No spectator shall anchor, block, loiter, or impede the through
transit of participants or official patrol vessels in the regulated
area described in paragraph (a) of this section during the effective
dates and times, unless cleared for entry by or through an official
patrol vessel.
    (5) The Patrol Commander may forbid and control the movement of all
vessels in the regulated area described in paragraph (a) of this
section. When hailed or signaled by an official patrol vessel, a vessel
shall come to an immediate stop and comply with the directions given.
Failure to do so may result in expulsion from the area, citation for
failure to comply, or both
    (6) Any spectator vessel may anchor outside the regulated area
described in paragraph (a) of this section, but may not anchor in,
block, or loiter in a navigable channel.
    (7) The Patrol Commander may terminate the event or the operation
of any vessel at any time it is deemed necessary for the protection of
life or property.
    (8) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's
representative by VHF-FM marine radio channel 16 or phone at 1-800-253-
7465. Those in the regulated area must comply with all lawful orders or
directions given to them by the COTP or the designated representative.
    (9) The COTP will provide notice of the regulated area through
advanced notice via local notice to mariners and broadcast notice to
mariners and by on-scene designated representatives.
    (d) Enforcement periods. This special local regulation will be
enforced from 9:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on July 9, 2022 and 9:30 a.m. to
4:00 p.m. on July 10, 2022.

    Dated: June 28, 2022.
A.M. Beach,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Ohio Valley.
[FR Doc. 2022-14223 Filed 7-1-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P