[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 138 (Thursday, July 18, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 34306-34313]
[FR Doc No: 2019-15221]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 49 and 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2017-0347; FRL-9996-67-Region 10]

Indian Country: Air Quality Planning and Management; Federal
Implementation Plan for the Kalispel Indian Community of the Kalispel
Reservation, Washington; Redesignation to a PSD Class I Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: In this final rule, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
is approving the May 11, 2017 proposal by the Kalispel Indian Community
of the Kalispel Reservation (herein referred to as the Kalispel Tribe
of Indians or Kalispel Tribe) to redesignate lands within the exterior
boundaries of the Kalispel Indian Reservation located in the State of
Washington to Class I under the Clean Air Act (Act or CAA) program for
the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) of air quality.
Redesignation to Class I will result in lowering the allowable
increases in ambient concentrations of particulate matter (PM), sulfur
dioxide (SO2), and nitrogen oxides (NOX) on the
Kalispel Indian Reservation. Concurrently, the EPA is codifying the
redesignation through a revision to the Federal Implementation Plan
(FIP) currently in place for the Kalispel Indian Reservation. This FIP
will be implemented by the EPA unless or until it is replaced by a
Tribal Implementation Plan (TIP).

DATES: This final rule is effective on August 19, 2019.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R10-OAR-2017-0347. All documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov website.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sandra Brozusky at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, it is intended to refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Response to Comments
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
V. Statutory Authority

I. Background

    Title 1, part C of the CAA contains the PSD program. The intent of
this part is to prevent deterioration of existing air quality in areas
having relatively clean air, i.e. areas meeting the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The Act provides for three
classifications applicable to all lands of the United States: Class I,
Class II, and Class III. Associated with each classification are
increments which represent the increase in air pollutant concentrations
that would be considered significant. PSD Class I allows the least
amount of deterioration of existing air quality. PSD Class II allows a
moderate amount of deterioration, while PSD Class III allows the
greatest amount of deterioration. Under the 1977 Amendments to the
Clean Air Act, all areas of the country that met the NAAQS were
initially designated as Class II, except for certain international
parks, wilderness areas, national memorial parks and national parks,
which were designated as Class I along with any other areas previously
designated Class I. The Act allows states and Indian governing bodies
to redesignate areas under their jurisdiction to PSD Class I or PSD
Class III ``to accommodate the social, economic, and environmental
needs and desires of the local population.'' Arizona v. EPA, 151 F.3d
1205, 1208 (9th Cir. 1998).
    On May 11, 2017, the Kalispel Tribe submitted to the EPA an
official proposal to redesignate the original Kalispel Reservation from
Class II to Class I. The original Kalispel Reservation was established
by Executive Order No. 1904, signed by President Woodrow Wilson on
March 23, 1914. A copy of this Executive Order is included in the
docket for this action. The Kalispel Tribe submitted a supplement to
the official proposal on July 13, 2017. The Kalispel Reservation is
located in the State of Washington. The Kalispel Tribe's proposal and
supplement included an analysis of the impacts of the redesignation
within and outside of the proposed Class I area, documentation of the
delivery and publication of appropriate notices, a record of the public
hearing held on April 10, 2017, and comments received by the Kalispel
Tribe on the proposed redesignation. EPA proposed to approve the
Kalispel Tribe's proposal to redesignate the original Kalispel
Reservation to a Class I area on October 31, 2018. (83 FR 54691). An
explanation of the requirements for a redesignation and how the
Kalispel Tribe complied with those requirements was provided in the
notice of proposed rulemaking and will not be restated here.
    The public comment period for this proposed action was open October
31, 2019 through December 14, 2018 and reopened February 5, 2019
through February 20, 2019. EPA held a public hearing on the proposed
action on December 6, 2018 in Newport, Washington. During this hearing,
16 members of the public provided verbal comments. Of the 16 verbal
commenters, 15 supported EPA's proposed approval of the Kalispel
Tribe's redesignation, while one commenter expressed interest in
establishing air quality monitoring stations in Pend Oreille County.
This comment was determined to be unrelated to this action and no
further discussion is provided below. Documentation of these comments
is included in the docket for this action.

II. Response to Comments

    EPA received comments from 164 parties on the proposed approval of
the Kalispel Tribe redesignation request. Of the 164, 137 commenters
supported EPA's proposed action, while 17 opposed EPA's proposed
action. The remaining ten comments were either unrelated to EPA's
proposed approval of the Kalispel Tribe's redesignation request or did
not recommend EPA take a position on the redesignation request. In
particular, several commenters expressed opposition to the proposed
construction of a silicon smelter in Newport, Washington. However, the
potential silicon smelter is unrelated to EPA's proposed approval of
the Kalispel Tribe's redesignation request. In addition, one commenter
provided information on the air quality monitoring needs in Pend
Oreille County, but did not connect this information with EPA's
proposed approval of the Kalispel Tribe's request. EPA has considered
all the relevant comments received. Within this section, we have
summarized the adverse comments and provided our responses.

A full copy of comments received is available in the docket for this
final action.

A. Economic Impacts of Redesignation

    Several commenters argued that EPA should deny the Kalispel Tribe's
proposal because redesignating the Kalispel Tribe's original
reservation to Class I under the CAA PSD program would hinder economic
development in the area. As stated in the proposal, the CAA establishes
a narrow role for EPA in reviewing a state or tribe's proposal to
redesignate certain areas as either Class I or Class III. Section
164(b)(2) of the CAA states, ``The Administrator may disapprove the
redesignation of any area only if he finds, after notice and
opportunity for public hearing, that such redesignation does not meet
the procedural requirements of [Section 164 of the CAA] or is
inconsistent with the requirements of [Section 162(a) of the CAA]
(listing mandatory Class I areas).''
    Similarly, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
recognized that when Congress amended Section 164 of the CAA in 1977,
Congress intended to ``eliminat[e] the authority which EPA had to
override a local government's classification of any area on the ground
that the local government improperly weighed energy, environment, and
other factors.'' Arizona, 151 F.3d at 1211 (citing H.R. Rep. No. 95-
294, at 7-8). The Ninth Circuit also made clear that once the
procedural requirements of Section 164 of the CAA and 40 CFR 52.21 are
met, the EPA must approve the request for redesignation. Id. at 1208,
1211. The Seventh Circuit has similarly acknowledged that EPA has
``little discretion'' when reviewing redesignation requests, provided
the procedural requirements have been met. Michigan v. EPA, 581 F.3d
524, 526 (7th Cir. 2009) (citing Arizona, 151 F.3d at 1208).
    Therefore, as described in the statutory text, EPA's role in acting
on a state or tribe's proposal is to determine whether the procedural
requirements in Section 164 of the CAA and implementing regulations at
40 CFR 52.21(g) have been met, not to assess the prudence of a state or
tribe's proposal based on economic considerations or other factors.
Moreover, neither the CAA, nor 40 CFR 52.21(g) require a state or tribe
requesting redesignation to demonstrate that the redesignation will
have no adverse economic, social, or energy effects. As stated in the
proposal, EPA found no procedural defects in the Kalispel Tribe's
proposed redesignation. Therefore, consistent with the constraints of
Section 164 of the CAA and 40 CFR 52.21(g), EPA has determined that
approval of the redesignation is appropriate.

B. Consultation With Elected Leadership of Local and Other Substate
Governments in the Area Covered by the Proposed Redesignation

    Several commenters argued that the regulations governing the
process for seeking redesignation mandated that the Kalispel Tribe
consult with county-level governments surrounding or near the Kalispel
Reservation. The regulation at 40 CFR 52.21(g)(2)(v) provides that
``the State has proposed the redesignation after consultation with the
elected leadership of local and other substate general purpose
governments in the area covered by the proposed redesignation.'' The
regulation at 40 CFR 52.21(g)(4)(i) provides that lands within the
exterior boundaries of Indian Reservations may be redesignated if the
Indian Governing Body has followed procedures equivalent to those
required of a State under 40 CFR 52.21(g)(2).
    The Kalispel Tribe's proposal makes clear that the area covered by
the proposed redesignation is the original reservation established by
Executive Order No. 1904, signed by President Woodrow Wilson on March
23, 1914. The Kalispel Business Council is the exclusive governing
authority in the Kalispel Reservation. Therefore, the Kalispel Tribe
satisfied this requirement. The area ``covered'' by the redesignation
is separate and distinct from the areas that may be ``affected'' by the
redesignation. Importantly, the consultation requirement in 40 CFR
52.21(g)(2)(v) is limited only to the areas ``covered'' by the
redesignation and does not extend to the areas potentially ``affected''
by the redesignation. As stated in the proposal, there is no
consultation requirement for areas that may be affected by the proposed
redesignation. By extension, the Kalispel Tribe was not required to
consult with county-level governments in Washington or Idaho prior to
proposing the redesignation. EPA's evaluation of the Kalispel Tribe's
compliance with the procedural requirements at 40 CFR 52.21(g)(2)(v)
and 40 CFR 52.21(g)(4)(i) is consistent with the regulatory text.
    One commenter stated that because the Kalispel Reservation is
located within Pend Oreille County, Pend Oreille County constitutes a
local or substate government in the Kalispel Reservation as
contemplated by 40 CFR 52.21(g)(2)(v) and 40 CFR 52.21(g)(4)(i). The
commenter further stated that EPA's interpretation of 40 CFR
52.21(g)(2)(v), as described in the proposal, undercuts its purpose.
    We decline to accept the commenter's interpretation of 40 CFR
52.21(g)(2)(v) to require tribes to consult with substate governments
whose boundaries encompass an Indian Reservation. If there existed
municipalities or counties within the Kalispel Reservation and the
Kalispel Business Council proposed to redesignate lands in those
municipalities or counties, then the regulations at 40 CFR
52.21(g)(2)(v) and 40 CFR 52.21(g)(4)(i) would require the Kalispel
Business Council to consult with the elected leadership of those
municipalities or counties. Here, the Kalispel Business Council is the
only governing body with jurisdiction within the Kalispel Reservation.
This constitutes an equivalent requirement as that mandated of a state
in 40 CFR 52.21(g)(2)(v). Accordingly, this interpretation maintains
fidelity to the plain language and purpose of 40 CFR 52.21(g)(4)(i) and
(g)(2)(v) and ensures that local and substate governments in the area
covered by the redesignation will be consulted prior to a state or
tribe proposing redesignation.

C. Inadequate Notice

    Three commenters argued that the Kalispel Tribe failed to provide
required notice to certain county-level governments potentially
impacted by the proposed redesignation. However, EPA does not interpret
40 CFR 52.21(g) or 51.102 as requiring the Kalispel Tribe to provide
direct notice of the proposed redesignation to each of these counties
individually. As explained in the proposal, and incorporated herein,
the Kalispel Tribe satisfied the notification requirements of Section
164 of the CAA and implementing regulations at 40 CFR 52.21(g). The
Tribe published a notice of the April 10, 2017, public hearing in the
Newport Miner on March 8, 2017, and again on March 15, 2017, as
required by 40 CFR 52.21(g)(2)(i). Also, the Tribe directly notified
other states, Indian governing bodies, and federal land managers at
least 30 days prior to the public hearing as required by 40 CFR
52.21(g)(2)(ii).
    As stated above, the Tribe was not required by Section 164 of the
CAA, nor the regulations at 40 CFR 52.21(g), to make a finding on what
areas may be affected by the proposed redesignation or provide direct
notice to such governments in such areas. Nevertheless, on March 6,
2017, the Tribe sent several Pend Oreille County; City of Newport,
Washington; Pend Oreille Public Utility District; and Washington
Department of Ecology officials a courtesy notice of the Tribe's

intent to propose redesignation, as well as the date, time, and
location of the public hearing and the availability of the Kalispel
Tribe's February 2017 Class I Redesignation Technical Report
(``Technical Report''). Therefore, the Tribe satisfied the notice
requirements of the CAA and regulations.

D. Provide a Discussion of the Reasons for the Proposed Redesignation
Including a Satisfactory Description and Analysis of the Health,
Environmental, Economic, Social, and Energy Effects of the Proposed
Redesignation

    Several commenters argued that the Kalispel Tribe's Technical
Report (Document No. EPA-R10-OAR-2017-0347-0013 in the Docket) failed
to provide a satisfactory description and analysis of the economic,
social, and energy effects of the proposed redesignation, as required
by 40 CFR 52.21(g)(2)(iii). In particular, several commenters stated
that the economic analysis provided in the Technical Report
inappropriately included data from Spokane County and Stevens County.
The commenters argued that the economic situation of Pend Oreille
County exclusively was more dire than the regional analysis depicted in
the Technical Report and that not all workers living in Pend Oreille
County can commute to Spokane.
    The statute and regulations do not establish a standard for a
``satisfactory description and analysis of the health, environmental,
economic, social, and energy effects of the proposed redesignation. . .
.'' 42 U.S.C. 7474(b)(1)(A). The Ninth Circuit's evaluation of a
similar criticism of the adequacy of a tribe's analysis is informative.
The court stated, ``Congress has established a narrow role for EPA in
reviewing State or Tribal requests for redesignation'' and that
``Congress limited EPA's authority to disapprove redesignation requests
to a procedural level.'' Arizona, 151 F.3d at 1211. Reviewing a
challenge to a redesignation, which included the question of whether
the Tribe's analysis was ``satisfactory,'' the Court found that EPA
``reasonabl[y] interpret[ed]'' the statutory requirements when the
agency concluded that a `` `satisfactory description and analysis' is a
relatively low threshold.'' Id.
    The court also explained that the CAA ``does not assign any weight
to these individual effects and does not suggest that one effect should
be given priority over another'' and that Congress did not intend for
EPA to ``re-weigh[ ] the effects of a proposed redesignation or second-
guess[ ] a Tribe's decision to redesignate its reservation lands.''
Arizona, 151 F.3d at 1211-12. Our review of the Technical Report was
informed, in part, by the Ninth Circuit's analysis of Section
164(b)(1)(A) of the CAA and we concluded that the analysis was
satisfactory. Further, as detailed below, the commenters did not
provide information that called into question the factual foundation of
the Technical Report.
    Specifically, our review of the Technical Report indicated that the
Tribe's analysis of the economic impacts of redesignation on Pend
Oreille, Stevens, and Spokane Counties was reasonable. In particular,
the Technical Report includes a supplemental report as Appendix B
entitled ``The Economic Impact of Redesignation of the Kalispel Indian
Reservation as a Class I Area under the Clean Air Act's Prevention of
Significant Deterioration Program.'' This report included a section
entitled ``Defining the Economic Area in Which the Kalispel Tribe is
Embedded,'' which explains the Tribe's rationale for defining the
Kalispel Reservation Economic Area.
    According to this section, the economic analysis included Spokane
County and Stevens County because of the economic connections between
Pend Oreille County and Stevens County with Spokane County. Pend
Oreille County, Spokane County, and Stevens County are located in the
Spokane Metropolitan Statistical Area, which is defined by the U.S.
Bureau of Economic Analysis based on measured connections between those
counties. The section also included data on commuting patterns that
indicated 24% of workers in Pend Oreille County commute to Spokane
County for work. Commenters did not provide any data to refute these
commuting patterns or the economic connections between the counties.
Indeed, the propriety of the Tribe's inclusion of Stevens County in the
analysis is reinforced by the fact that the Stevens County
Commissioners commented on EPA's proposed rulemaking, highlighting the
potential economic impacts of redesignation on residents of Stevens
County.
    The regulation at 40 CFR 52.21(g)(2)(iii) required the Tribe to
analyze the economic effects of the proposed redesignation. The
regulation does not specify the scope of the analysis. Given the
potential for the redesignation to impact pollution sources in Stevens
County and Spokane County and the economic linkages between those
counties, the Tribe was not unreasonable in analyzing the economic
impact of redesignation on all three counties collectively. Moreover,
based on the numerous substantive comments the Tribe received regarding
the economic situation in Pend Oreille County, the Technical Report
appears to have aided the public in providing comments on the Tribe's
proposed redesignation.
    In addition to the comments regarding the Tribe's economic impacts
analysis, one commenter noted that the Technical Report incorrectly
accounts for emissions from Ponderay Newsprint Company's facility
located less than two miles south of Usk, Washington and inaccurately
suggests that Ponderay Newsprint Company's facility accounts for all
PM10 emissions in the County. However, the Technical
Report's description of emissions sources and levels in the area near
the Kalispel Reservation is satisfactory.
    Specifically, the Technical Report includes a narrative discussion
of the sources of emissions in Pend Oreille County and summarized these
emissions in Table 13 and Table 14 in the Technical Report. Contrary to
the commenter's assertions, the narrative description in the Technical
Report makes clear that a sawmill operated by Vaagen Brothers Lumber,
Inc. and a locomotive repair facility operated by Pend Oreille Valley
Railroad produce particulate emissions in the County, but that
information on the precise emissions from these sources was not
publicly available. The Tribe also noted in its discussion of emissions
sources that the Tribe could not ascertain the status of the air
quality permit for Ponderay Newsprint Company's facility. In the
alternative, the Tribe obtained emissions estimates for Ponderay
Newsprint Company's facility from the Washington Department of
Ecology's Title V Program Review Final Report dated September 22, 2014
and provided these estimates in Table 14. Given that the Washington
Department of Ecology is the permitting authority for Ponderay
Newsprint Company's facility, the Tribe's reliance on these figures is
reasonable. The Tribe's decision not to provide an estimate of
emissions from other point sources of particulate matter in Table 13 in
the absence of a credible source of emissions data was similarly
reasonable.
    As well as the comments regarding the emissions data presented in
the Tribe's Technical Report, three commenters argued that the
Technical Report was not satisfactory because it did not include an
analysis of the current consumption of the PSD increment for
particulate matter with a diameter less than 10 micrometers
(PM10). The commenters contend that the absence of this
analysis renders the entire Technical Report materially

deficient. We disagree. As stated above, the Kalispel Tribe was
required to provide the public, at least 30 days in advance of the
public meeting, a discussion of the reasons for the proposed
redesignation including a satisfactory description and analysis of the
health, environmental, economic, social, and energy effects of the
proposed redesignation. The Kalispel Tribe did so. The Kalispel Tribe
provided the Technical Report over 30 days in advance of the April 10,
2017, public hearing. As discussed in the proposal, EPA assessed the
report and determined that it contains a thorough description of the
health, environmental, economic, social, and energy effects of the
proposed redesignation.
    EPA's assessment is consistent with the limited role assigned to
EPA in this endeavor. The Ninth Circuit has recognized that ``Congress
has established a narrow role for EPA in reviewing State or Tribal
requests for redesignation'' and that ``Congress limited EPA's
authority to disapprove redesignation requests to a procedural level.''
Arizona v. EPA, 151 F.3d at 1211. Reviewing a challenge to a
redesignation, which included the question of whether the Tribe's
analysis was ``satisfactory,'' the Court found that EPA ``reasonabl[y]
interpret[ed]'' the statutory requirements when the agency concluded
that a `` `satisfactory description and analysis' is a relatively low
threshold.'' Id. Consistent with that direction, given the thorough
description and analysis included in the report, it is reasonable for
us to conclude that the Kalispel Tribe has cleared this low threshold.
Indeed, the Tribe's Technical Report exceeded the minimum requirements
in several respects, as discussed below.
    Similar to the commenters here, the petitioners in Arizona v. EPA
argued that the Yavapai-Apache Tribe's description and analysis of the
potential effects of redesignation was inadequate. Arizona v. EPA, 151
F.3d at 1212. The Court noted in Arizona v. EPA that the Tribe's report
``failed to detail what specific effect, if any, redesignation could
have on local sources already in existence . . . .'' Id. at 1209. The
Court nevertheless upheld EPA's approval of the redesignation request
on the grounds that the CAA does not mandate a detailed assessment of
the impacts of redesignation on existing sources. Id. at 1211-12. The
Court stated that ``it cannot be said that EPA abused its discretion in
concluding that the Tribe was not required, as a prerequisite to
redesignation, to go further in its Plan by (1) explicitly balancing
the different effects of redesignation; (2) identifying air quality
related values; (3) evaluating the extent to which Class I status might
discourage particular industrial development and expansion; or (4)
pointing to off-site sources which might be impacted by the
redesignation, including the Phoenix Cement Plant.'' Id. at 1212.
    Contrary to the commenters' assertions, the Technical Report at
Section 4.1 and Appendix C make clear that the proposed Class I
redesignation would reduce the allowable increases above baseline
concentration in particulate matter emissions currently allowed under
the PSD increment for Class II areas. That is the nature of the Class I
PSD redesignation. The commenters are correct that increases in
emissions of PM10 since the minor source baseline date was
triggered consume increment, while decreases in emissions make
increment available for future consumption. The emissions increases and
decreases contributing to increment consumption fluctuate over time.
Moreover, increment consumption is both time- and location-specific--
two sources can both consume 100% of the increment if their impact
occurs at different locations or different times. An analysis of
increment consumption at a fixed point in time, as the commenters
request, would not change the overall analysis given these
fluctuations.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ We also note that if the State or EPA determines that an
applicable increment is being violated, then the State or EPA is
obligated to promulgate a revised implementation plan to correct the
violation. However, neither the CAA nor the implementing regulations
prescribe how the regulatory authority must act to reduce emissions
or what sources the regulatory authority must control. In addition,
interested parties will have an opportunity to comment on any plan
revisions the State or EPA proposes to correct the increment
violation prior to the revisions taking effect.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While determining the current PM10 increment consumption
in the area in and around the Kalispel Reservation would have provided
the public with a snap-shot of the current situation, this
determination is not an indispensable component of the description and
analysis of the potential impacts of redesignation, as the commenter
suggests. Given the temporal and spatial nature of the increments, an
analysis of potential impacts would need to include numerous
assumptions about future emissions changes and the emissions from
future projects. EPA does not interpret the requirement of Section 164
of the CAA and 40 CFR 52.21(g) to provide a ``satisfactory description
and analysis'' of potential impacts as requiring such a highly
technical and speculative analysis as a prerequisite to obtaining Class
I PSD redesignation. As stated above, the Ninth Circuit made clear in
Arizona v. EPA that Section 164 of the CAA does not require a detailed
assessment of the impacts of redesignation on existing sources. Id. at
1211-12.
    Furthermore, the Tribe did provide an assessment of the impact of
redesignation on two hypothetical energy projects sited near the
Kalispel Reservation. As part of these assessments, the Kalispel Tribe
modeled the PM2.5, SO2, and NOX
increment consumption from both hypothetical projects. The assessments
modeled consumption of PM2.5 increments which are lower than
the corresponding PM10 increments as a conservative worst-
case scenario. The Kalispel Tribe's assessments of the two hypothetical
scenarios provide a meaningful analysis of the economic and energy
impacts of the proposed redesignation that added value to the public
hearing process.
    Finally, several commenters argued that the Tribe's Technical
Report inaccurately determined that the forest products industry was
declining in the area surrounding the reservation and that economic
growth in the area is more likely to be driven by sectors other than
manufacturing. However, these commenters provided minimal empirical
data to refute the Tribe's analysis. Therefore, the Tribe was not
unreasonable to structure its analysis of the economic and social
impacts of the redesignation around the predicted economic makeup of
the region surrounding the Kalispel Reservation. The Tribe provided a
satisfactory discussion of the reasons for the proposed redesignation
including a satisfactory description and analysis of the health,
environmental, economic, social, and energy effects of the proposed
redesignation as required by Section 164 of the CAA and 40 CFR
52.21(g)(2)(iii).

E. EPA Should Require the Kalispel Tribe To Redesignate Its Entire
Reservation, Not Just a Portion of the Reservation

    One commenter argued that EPA should require the Kalispel Tribe to
include its entire reservation in the redesignation proposal, rather
than just the original reservation. First, neither the CAA nor the
regulations at 40 CFR 52.21(g)(4) prohibit a tribe from proposing
redesignation of a portion of its reservation. Section 164(c) of the
CAA and 40 CFR 52.21(g)(4) state that lands within the exterior
boundaries of Indian Reservations may be redesignated only by the
appropriate Indian Governing Body. It is reasonable for EPA to read
these sections as not

prohibiting a Tribe from proposing to redesignate only a portion of its
reservation, as there is no statutory text indicating that if any part
of a Tribe's reservation is redesignated then all of the reservation
land must be redesignated.
    Contrary to the commenter's statements, EPA's approvals of prior
redesignation proposals from other Indian governing bodies is
consistent with this interpretation. Indeed, EPA approved the Forest
County Potowatomi Community's proposal to redesignate only those
parcels in the Community's land that equaled or exceeded 80 acres in
size. See, 73 FR 23086, 23101 (April 29, 2008). The commenter
references EPA's action in approving the Yavapai-Apache Tribal
Council's proposal to redesignate the Tribe's entire reservation as
support that the CAA requires tribes to propose redesignation of their
entire reservations, rather than just a portion of their reservations.
61 FR 56450 (Nov. 1, 1996). However, the action cited by the commenter
differs materially from the current action regarding the Kalispel
Tribe's proposal. Namely, in the action cited by the commenter, the EPA
was required to resolve a dispute between the Governor of Arizona and
the Yavapai-Apache Tribe under Section 164(e) of the CAA. 61 FR 56450,
56452. When this dispute resolution procedure is invoked, Section
164(e) of the CAA requires EPA to consider the extent to which the
lands involved in the redesignation are of sufficient size to allow
effective air quality management or have air quality related values of
such an area.
    Here, no state has requested EPA resolve any dispute under the
authority of section 164(e), and authority to invoke dispute resolution
is limited to just states and Indian tribes by the statutory text of
section 164(e). Therefore, under Section 164(b) of the CAA, EPA lacks
authority to consider whether the lands the Kalispel Tribe has proposed
for redesignation are of sufficient size. As stated above, the EPA may
disapprove the Kalispel Tribe's request only if the Tribe failed to
follow the procedural requirements in Section 164 of the CAA and 40 CFR
52.21(g).

F. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    One commenter argued that EPA was required by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, to include in the notice of
proposed rulemaking an initial regulatory flexibility analysis. In the
notice of proposed rulemaking, the Regional Administrator for EPA
Region 10 certified pursuant to Section 605 of the RFA that the
proposed rule, if finalized, would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The commenter argues
that the Regional Administrator's certification was improper because
approval of the Kalispel Tribe's redesignation proposal impacts small
entities located near the reservation.
    We disagree. The Regional Administrator's certification was proper
because EPA's approval of the redesignation does not impose any direct
regulatory burden on any small entities. The Regulatory Flexibility Act
imposes no obligation for EPA to conduct a small entity impact analysis
of effects on entities which EPA does not regulate. As stated in the
proposal, the PSD program already exists on the Reservation and the
surrounding area. This action merely approves a Tribe's request to
redesignate a portion of its reservation to a Class I area under the
PSD program and does not impose any direct regulatory obligations on
any sources within or surrounding the Reservation. The State of
Washington Department of Ecology administers the PSD Program on the
lands surrounding the Kalispel Reservation. While the redesignation may
impact the State of Washington's planning and permitting decisions,
this indirect impact does not constitute direct regulation of small
entities. See Michigan v. EPA, 213 F.3d 663, 689 (D.C. Cir. 2000), see
also Am. Trucking Associations, Inc. v. EPA, 175 F.3d 1027, 1044 (D.C.
Cir. 1999).
    EPA administers the PSD program on the Kalispel Reservation. Even
accepting that approving the Kalispel Tribe's proposal constitutes
direct regulation of small entities within the Reservation, there are
no permitted stationary sources of emissions within the exterior
boundaries of the original Kalispel Reservation. Whether any PSD
permits or minor source permits will be issued after the redesignation
is speculative, so any effect of the redesignation on any EPA
permitting decision is similarly speculative. Therefore, there is
insufficient information to conclude that there would be a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities located
within the Reservation. Accordingly, the Regional Administrator's
certification was proper.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ We also note that this Final Rule amends the FIP for the
Kalispel Indian Community for Kalispel Reservation, Washington.
codified at 40 CFR 49.10191-49.10220. On April 8, 2005, EPA
promulgated this FIP, as well as FIPs for other federally recognized
Indian tribes in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho. These FIPs are
collectively called the Federal Air Rules for Reservations
(``FARR''). See 40 CFR part 49, subpart M and 70 FR 18074. In that
rulemaking EPA certified that the promulgation of the FARR would not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. 70 FR 18074, 18091-92. Therefore, the Regional
Administrator's certification for today's revision to one of the
FIPs in the FARR is consistent with the EPA's prior determinations
on the impacts of the FARR on small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

G. Other Specific Questions or Comments

    Summary: One commenter states that the Clean Air Act did not intend
to redesignate areas of land under 5,000 acres.
    Response: EPA disagrees. In Section 162(a) of the CAA, Congress
initially classified certain areas as Class I under the PSD program,
and prohibited redesignation of these areas. Specifically, this section
states that all international parks, national wilderness areas which
exceed 5,000 acres in size, national memorial parks which exceed 5,000
acres in size, and national parks which exceed six thousand acres in
size will be classified as Class I. The 5,000-acre threshold is
expressly associated with national wilderness areas and national
memorial parks and identifies those areas that are mandatory Class I
areas that ``may not be redesignated.'' 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). The
statutory text does not establish a size limitation for all Class I
areas. Lands of the type identified in Section 162(a) of the CAA that
are below the associated size limits are Class II areas by default.
Section 164 of the CAA explicitly authorizes states and Indian tribes
to redesignate areas as Class I and does not prescribe a size. Neither
Section 162 nor Section 164 of the CAA restrict a tribe or state from
proposing to redesignate portions of a reservation or state land under
5,000 acres.
    Summary: One commenter asserts that a fair and open public hearing
held by the Kalispel Tribe never occurred due to the hearing examiner
instructing a participant to stop speaking, which discouraged other
participants from speaking.
    Response: EPA disagrees. In order to allow all participants an
opportunity to speak during a public hearing, it is common and
appropriate for a hearing examiner or officer to establish a time
limit. EPA reviewed this hearing transcript (Document No. EPA-R10-OAR-
2017-0347-0029 in the Docket) and determined that the hearing examiner
established a three-minute time limit at the beginning of the hearing
and enforced this limit during the hearing. Time-limits can be abrupt
in nature, however even with the established time limit, the transcript
appears to contain full dialogue from participants. All speakers were
subject to the same time limit and members of

the public also had the opportunity to submit written comments to the
Tribe.
    Summary: One commenter asks what effect this designation will have
on agricultural field, forest slash, and forest health burning in their
community.
    Response: We note at the outset that the commenter does not
recommend the EPA take a different action than proposed. Therefore, EPA
provides the following response for informational purposes only.
Emissions increases from the open burning of agricultural field
residues or forest slash, and forest health burning after the minor
source baseline date may consume the available PSD increment or may
expand the increment if such emissions decrease. However, the emissions
from these open burning activities are transitory and occur for short
durations and at different locations each year. When such emissions are
included in increment consumption calculations, we would expect the
consumption at any location from such emissions to be small due to the
transitory nature of the emissions. Thus, it is unlikely that the
redesignation of the Kalispel Indian Reservation to PSD Class I will
have an impact on current or future open burning activities.
    Summary: One commenter asserts that Boundary County, Idaho is
downwind from the Tribal Reservation and the commenter requests that
all lands in Boundary County be excluded from the Class I
redesignation.
    Response: This final action only applies to the area within the
external boundaries of the original Kalispel Tribe reservation, as
identified in the proposed rule. Boundary County, Idaho will not be
redesignated to a Class I area as part of this action.
    Summary: Numerous commenters expressed support for EPA's proposed
approval of the Kalispel Tribe's redesignation request and encouraged
EPA to finalize the approval.
    Response: We have considered these comments, acknowledge the
support, and agree that finalizing approval of the Kalispel Tribe's
redesignation request is appropriate.

III. Final Action

    The EPA's review has not found any procedural deficiencies
associated with the Kalispel Tribe's proposal. Accordingly, pursuant to
section 164 of the CAA and 40 CFR 52.21(g), the redesignation is hereby
approved. The EPA is codifying the redesignation through a revision to
the FIP currently in place for the Kalispel Indian Reservation. See 40
CFR 49.10191-49.10220. This FIP will be implemented by the EPA unless
or until it is replaced by a TIP. To ensure transparency, the EPA is
also making a clarifying revision to the Washington State
Implementation Plan at 40 CFR part 52, subpart WW, which would inform
any party interested in Washington's significant deterioration of air
quality provisions that the Kalispel Reservation is a Class I area for
purposes of prevention of significant deterioration of air quality.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of the Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4,
1993) and is therefore not subject to review under the E.O., and was
not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs

    This action is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771
regulatory action because this action is not significant under
Executive Order 12866.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
We are not proposing to promulgate any new paperwork requirements
(e.g., monitoring, reporting, record keeping) as part of this action.
The regulation at 40 CFR 49.10198 incorporates by reference the Federal
PSD program promulgated at 40 CFR 52.21. The OMB has previously
approved the information collection requirements contained in the
existing regulations (40 CFR 52.21) under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and has assigned OMB
control number 2060-0003, EPA ICR number 1230.32.

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

    The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedures Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small
governmental jurisdictions.
    For the purposes of assessing the impacts of this final action on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as
defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13
CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government
of a city, county, town, school district, or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; or (3) a small organization that is any
not-for-profit enterprise that is independently owned and operated and
is not dominant in its field. I certify that this action will not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the RFA. As stated in Section II, this action will not impose any
new requirements on small entities. This action will redesignate to
Class I only those lands within the exterior boundaries of the Kalispel
Indian Reservation under the CAA's PSD program. The PSD permitting
requirements already apply on the Reservation as well as the
surrounding area. In addition, the PSD permitting requirements only
apply to the construction of new major stationary sources or major
modifications to existing major stationary sources. Therefore, the EPA
does not anticipate this action having a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. This action does not contain any
unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes
no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the
private sector. Nor does this action create additional requirements
beyond those already applicable under the existing PSD permitting
requirements.

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have Federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government. This
action does not change the relationship between the states and the EPA
regarding implementation of the PSD permitting

requirements in the area. The EPA administers the PSD permitting
requirements within the Kalispel Reservation. The States of Washington
and Idaho administer the permitting requirements in the nearby areas.

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

    This action has tribal implications. However, it will neither
impose substantial direct compliance costs on Federally-recognized
tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law. The EPA is finalizing this
action in response to the Kalispel Tribe's proposal to redesignate the
Kalispel Reservation from a Class II to a Class I area. Major
stationary sources proposed to be constructed within the boundaries of
the Kalispel Reservation will be required to demonstrate that the
source does not contribute to an exceedance of the lower PSD increments
for Class I areas. Nonetheless, pursuant to the EPA Policy on
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes, the EPA consulted
with tribal officials early in the process of developing this proposed
action so that they could have meaningful and timely input into its
development. The Kalispel Tribe submitted its proposal on May 11, 2017.
Subsequent to receiving the submission, the EPA communicated and
corresponded with the Tribe numerous times throughout the review
process.

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

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. Redesignation of the Kalispel
Indian Reservation to Class I from Class II will reduce the allowable
increase in ambient concentrations of various types of pollutants. The
reduction of allowable increases in these pollutants can only be
expected to better protect the health of tribal members, members of the
surrounding communities, and especially children and asthmatics. See 78
FR 3086 (regarding the specific human health consequences of exposure
to elevated levels of coarse and fine particles); 82 FR 34792
(regarding the specific human health consequences of exposure to
elevated levels of nitrogen dioxide); 75 FR 35520 (regarding the
specific human health consequences of exposure to elevated levels of
sulfur dioxide).

I. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    This action does not involve technical standards. This action
merely redesignates the Kalispel Reservation as a Class I area for the
purposes of the PSD permitting requirements.

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

    The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
Prior to this proposal, the EPA reviewed population centers within and
around the Kalispel Indian Reservation to identify areas with
environmental justice concerns. The results of this review are included
in the docket for this action.
    Redesignating the Kalispel Indian Reservation will not have an
adverse human health or environmental effect on residents within the
Reservation or in the surrounding community. On the contrary, by
lowering the applicable PSD increments, the redesignation will be more
protective of air quality. The following pollutants are subject to the
increment requirement: Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5),
PM10, SO2, and Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2).
Exposure to these pollutants is known to have a causal relationship
with adverse health effects, such as premature mortality
(PM2.5, PM10, SO2), exacerbation of
asthma (NO2 and SO2), and other respiratory
effects (NO2 and SO2). See 78 FR 3086, 82 FR
34792, and 75 FR 35520. Therefore, a reduction of the allowable
concentrations of these pollutants in this area lowers the risk to the
surrounding communities of adverse health effects.

L. Congressional Review Act

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

M. Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 16, 2019. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements (See section 307(b)(2)).

V. Statutory Authority

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

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 49

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Indians, Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: July 5, 2019.
Chris Hladick,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, 40 CFR parts 49 and 52 are
amended as follows:

PART 49--INDIAN COUNTRY: AIR QUALITY PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT

0
1. The authority citation for Part 49 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart M--Implementation Plans for Tribes--Region X

0
2. Revise Sec.  49.10198 to read as follows:

Sec.  49.10198   Permits to construct.

    (a) Permits to construct are required for new major stationary
sources and major modifications to existing stationary sources pursuant
to 40 CFR 52.21.
    (b) In accordance with section 164 of the Clean Air Act and the
provisions of 40 CFR 52.21(g), the original Kalispel Reservation, as
established by Executive Order No. 1904, signed by President Woodrow
Wilson on March 23, 1914, is designated as a Class I area for the
purposes of prevention of significant deterioration of air quality.

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
3. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart WW--Washington

0
4. Amend Sec.  52.2497 by adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2497  Significant deterioration of air quality.

* * * * *
    (d) The regulations at 40 CFR 49.10191 through 49.10220 contain the
Federal Implementation Plan for the Kalispel Indian Community of the
Kalispel Reservation, Washington. The regulation at 40 CFR 49.10198(b)
designates the original Kalispel Reservation, as established by
Executive Order No. 1904, signed by President Woodrow Wilson on March
23, 1914, as a Class I area for purposes of prevention of significant
deterioration of air quality.

[FR Doc. 2019-15221 Filed 7-17-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 152 (Tuesday, August 7, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47150-47152]
[FR Doc No: 2012-19211]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67553; File No. SR-EDGA-2012-34]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; EDGA Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Relating to
Optional Attribution of Orders on the EDGA Book Feed

August 1, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on July 24, 2012, EDGA Exchange, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or
``EDGA'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 11.5, entitled ``Orders and
Modifiers'', to allow optional attribution of orders submitted to the
Exchange on the EDGA Book Feed (the ``Service'' or ``EdgeBook
Attributed\SM\'') to Members and non-Members of the Exchange
(collectively referred to as ``Recipients'') without charge. The text
of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web site at
www.directedge.com, at the Exchange's principal office, and at the
Public Reference Room of the Commission.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries,
set forth in Sections A, B and C below, of the most significant aspects
of such statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and the
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    In SR-EDGA-2011-19,\3\ the Exchange made available the EDGA Book
Feed (``EDGA Book Feed''), a data feed that contains all orders for
securities trading on the Exchange, including all displayed orders for
listed securities trading on EDGA, order executions, order
cancellations, order modifications, order identification numbers and
administrative messages. The EDGA Book Feed offers real-time data,
thereby allowing Member firms to more accurately price their orders
based on EDGA's view of the depth of book information. It also provides
Members an ability to track their own orders from order entry to
execution. It is available in both unicast and multicast formats. In
SR-EDGA-2012-15,\4\ the Exchange modified the EDGA fee schedule by
codifying the fees associated with the receipt of the EDGA Book Feed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 64792 (July 1, 2011), 76
FR 39959 (July 7, 2011) (SR-EDGA-2011-19).
    \4\ Securities and Exchange Release No. 66863 (Apr. 26, 2012),
77 FR 26059 (May 2, 2012) (SR-EDGA-2012-15).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of this filing is to allow Members to optionally enter
orders into the Exchange's System,\5\ conveying their identity.\6\ Such
information will then be

displayed on the Exchange's new Service, namely EdgeBook
Attributed\SM\, that will allow Recipients the option to view the
market participant identifier (``MPID'') of such Members of the
Exchange, including Market Makers,\7\ on an order-by-order basis.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 11.5(c)(18) to add a
definition of an Attributable Order, which shall mean an order that is
designated for display (price and size) including the Member's MPID.
The Exchange also proposes to adopt a definition in Rule 11.5(c)(19)
for a Non-Attributable Order, which shall mean an order that is
designated for display (price and size) on an anonymous basis by the
Exchange. The proposed definitions of Attributable Order and Non-
Attributable Order are virtually identical to definitions contained in
the Rules of BATS Exchange, Inc. (``BATS'') and The NASDAQ Stock Market
LLC (``Nasdaq'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ As defined in EDGA Rule 1.5(cc).
    \6\ Through the use of a field within the order entry message,
Members will permit the display of their entered order on the EDGA
Book Feed to include their associated MPID.
    \7\ As defined in EDGA Rule 1.5(l).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The attributed information will be disseminated on the EDGA Book
Feed and available for use by Recipients. Currently, all display-
eligible orders are displayed in the EDGA Book Feed on an anonymous
basis without attribution to the individual Member. The Exchange is
proposing to allow Recipients to utilize a new feature on the EDGA Book
Feed, which will include MPIDs on published quotations.
    At this time, EDGA does not have plans to charge an additional fee
associated with the receipt of the Service. Should EDGA determine to
charge fees associated with EdgeBook Attributed\SM\, EDGA will submit a
proposed rule change to the Commission in order to implement those
fees.
    The Exchange believes that such attribution is consistent with the
Exchange's Market Making rules, traditional market making on the floor
of an exchange, and existing rules of the Exchange's competitors.\8\
The additional feature will allow Members to publically disclose their
identity when quoting on the Exchange and to display their attributed
quote on the EDGA Book Feed. The Service will, in particular, allow a
Market Maker to identify itself as a party that is willing to buy or
sell securities on the Exchange and make continuous two-sided markets.
The Exchange believes that this information will be beneficial to all
Recipients and will aid in their trading decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See infra footnote 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange intends to implement the proposed rule change on or
about September 1, 2012. The Exchange first announced the Service to
Members and non-Members in Direct Edge Trading Notice 12-25,
published on June 27, 2012. As the Service is optional, there is no
need for a phased implementation, as neither Recipients nor Members who
wish to attribute their identity in the Service or wish to opt out of
the Service will have to affect any material systems changes with
regard to the Service.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,\9\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\10\ which
requires, among other things, that the Exchange's rules not be designed
to unfairly discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers
and is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and
practices, to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster
cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
EDGA believes that this proposal is in keeping with those principles by
promoting increased transparency through the dissemination of the
additional Service and by announcing its availability via information
circular. In addition, EDGA is making a voluntary decision to make this
Service available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EDGA is not required by the Act in the first instance to make the
Service available, unlike the best bid and offer which must be made
available under the Act. EDGA chooses to make the Service available as
proposed in order to improve market quality, to attract order flow, and
to increase transparency. Once this filing becomes effective, EDGA will
be required to continue making the Service available until such time as
EDGA changes its rule.
    Furthermore, the proposal will benefit Recipients and help to
promote transparency by providing additional information regarding
quotations displayed on the Exchange by various Members and thereby aid
Recipients in their trading decisions. Specifically, any Member that
wishes to publicly disclose their identity (through their MPID) when
quoting on the Exchange will be permitted to do so, and such attributed
quotations will be analogous to the quotations they provide in other
contexts (e.g., on the floor of a floor-based stock exchange or in the
over-the-counter market through direct interaction). The proposed rule
change also promotes transparency in that it will allow Recipients who
wish to utilize the Service additional transparency into discerning the
contra-party in a given execution.
    The proposed rule change is also consistent with Section 11A(a)(1)
of the Act \11\ in that it seeks to assure fair competition among
brokers and dealers by providing functionality that is consistent with
that of functionality offered by the Exchange's competitors.\12\ The
Exchange believes that the proposed rule change promotes just and
equitable principles of trade in that it promotes uniformity across
markets concerning the ability to display an attributed order on an
exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1).
    \12\ See infra footnote 14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Lastly, in adopting Regulation NMS, the Commission granted SROs and
broker-dealers increased authority and flexibility to offer new and
unique market data services to the public. The Commission believed this
authority would expand the amount of data available to market
participants, and also spur innovation and competition for the
provision of market data. EdgeBook Attributed\SM\ appears to be
precisely the sort of market data service that the Commission
envisioned when it adopted Regulation NMS.\13\ The Service will allow
Recipients to utilize a Service that will provide them a means to view
attributed information on orders on the EDGA Book Feed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Securities and Exchange Act Release No. 51808 (June 9,
2005), 70 FR 37496 (June 29, 2005) (``[E]fficiency is promoted when
broker-dealers who do not need the data beyond the prices, sizes,
market center identifications of the NBBO and consolidated last sale
information are not required to receive (and pay for) such data. The
Commission also believes that efficiency is promoted when broker-
dealers may choose to receive (and pay for) additional market data
based on their own internal analysis of the need for such data.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or
appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.
    There is significant competition for the provision of market data
to market participants, as well as competition for the orders that
generate that data. In introducing the proposed Service, the

Exchange would be providing one similar to those already offered by
other market centers.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Nasdaq Rules 4751(e)(1) and (2) and BATS Rules
11.9(c)(14) and (15).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from its Members or other interested
parties.

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) \15\ of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \16\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i)
Necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the
protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the
purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please
include File Number SR-EDGA-2012-34 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-EDGA-2012-34. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-EDGA-2012-34 and should be
submitted on or before August 28, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-19211 Filed 8-6-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 6 (Tuesday, January 10, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 1405-1406]
[FR Doc No: 2012-170]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2011-1160]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, LA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District, has issued a
temporary deviation from the regulation governing the operation of the
SR 384 (Grand Lake) pontoon bridge across the Gulf Intracoastal
Waterway, mile 231.4 West of Harvey Locks, at Grand Lake, Cameron
Parish, Louisiana. The deviation is necessary to allow for the safe
movement of the increased vehicular traffic crossing the bridge due to
another bridge in the area being temporarily removed from service. This
deviation allows the bridge to remain closed to navigation during the
morning and evening rush hours Monday through Saturday for three
months.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 6:30 a.m. on Monday, January 9,
2012 until 5 p.m. on Friday, March 30, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2011-1160 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2011-1160 in the
``Keyword'' box and then clicking ``Search''. They

are also available for inspection or copying at the Docket Management
Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC
20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email David Frank, Bridge Administration Branch; telephone
(504) 671-2128, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on
viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Louisiana Department of Transportation
and Development (LDOTD) has requested a temporary deviation from the
operating schedule for the Grand Lake Pontoon Bridge across the Gulf
Intracoastal Waterway, mile 231.5 west of Harvey Lock (WHL), at Grand
Lake, Cameron Parish, Louisiana. The deviation will allow the bridge to
remain closed to navigation from 6:30 a.m. until 8 a.m. and from 3 p.m.
until 5 p.m. Monday through Friday beginning on Monday, January 9, 2012
and continuing until Friday, March 30, 2012. The purpose of the
deviation is to allow for increased vehicular traffic to safely cross
the bridge during the morning and evening rush hours. LDOTD is
temporarily removing the Black Bayou Pontoon Bridge from service to
conduct repairs to the barge. The bridge is located six miles upstream
from the Grand Lake Bridge and is the only other vehicular crossing
over the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway.
    The pontoon bridge has no vertical clearance in the closed-to-
navigation position. The bridge normally opens to pass navigation an
average of 1005 times a month. In accordance with 33 CFR 117.5, the
bridge opens on signal for the passage of vessels. The bridge will be
able to open for emergencies during the closure period.
    Navigation on the waterway consists mainly of tugs with tows and
some fishing vessels. The delay of up to four hours for six weeks will
not have a significant effect on these vessels. No practical alternate
route is readily available. Notices will be published in the Eighth
Coast Guard District Local Notice to Mariners and will be broadcast via
the Coast Guard Broadcast Notice to Mariners System.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(c), this work will be performed
with all due speed in order to return the bridge to normal operation as
soon as possible. This deviation from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: December 20, 2011.
David M. Frank,
Bridge Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2012-170 Filed 1-9-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 178 (Friday, September 15, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43450-43452]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19638]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2017-0083]

Reports, Forms, and Recordkeeping Requirements

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Request for public comment on the modification of an existing
collection of information.

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

SUMMARY: Before a Federal agency may collect certain information from
the public, it must receive approval from the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB). Under procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995, before seeking OMB approval, Federal agencies must solicit
public comment on proposed collections of information, including
extensions and reinstatements of previously approved collections. This
document describes a modification of an existing collection of
information for which NHTSA intends to seek OMB approval.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 14, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments using any of the following methods:
    Electronic submissions: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the online instructions for submitting comments.
    Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE.,
Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590.
    Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays. Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; Fax:
(202) 493-2251.
    Instructions: Each submission must include the Agency name and the
Docket number for this proposed collection of information. Note that
all comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on
April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit http://www.dot.gov/privacy.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Debbie Sweet, NHTSA, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590; Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; Fax:
(202) 366-2106; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
before an agency submits a proposed collection of information to OMB
for approval, it must first publish a document in the Federal Register
providing a 60-day comment period and otherwise consult with members of
the public and affected agencies concerning each proposed collection of
information. OMB has promulgated regulations describing what must be
included in such a document. Under OMB's regulation (at 5 CFR
1320.8(d)), an agency must request public comment on the following:
    (i) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for
the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have practical utility;
    (ii) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
    (iii) how to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected;
    (iv) how to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g. permitting electronic
submission of responses.
    In compliance with these requirements, NHTSA asks for public
comments on the following proposed collection of information:
    Title: Automated Driving Systems 2.0: A Vision for Safety.
    Type of Request: Modification of a currently approved information
collection.
    OMB Clearance Number: 2127-0723.

    Form Number: None.
    Requested Expiration Date of Approval: Three years from date of
approval.
    Summary of the collection of Information: In a separate notice
published in the Federal Register today, the Department of
Transportation is announcing the publication of the policy document \1\
titled Automated Driving Systems 2.0: A Vision for Safety. \2\
Recognizing the potential that highly Automated Driving Systems (ADSs)
have to enhance safety and mobility, this document sets out an approach
to enable the safe deployment of Automated Driving Systems \3\ (SAE
Automation Levels 3 through 5--Conditional, High, and Full Automation
Systems as defined in SAE J3016).\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Conformance to the guidance in Automated Driving Systems
2.0: A Vision for Safety is voluntary. See Fixing America's Surface
Transportation Act, Public Law 114-94, Sec.  24406 (2015) (``No
guidelines issued by the Secretary with respect to motor vehicle
safety shall confer any rights on any person, State, or locality,
nor shall operate to bind the Secretary or any person to the
approach recommended in such guidelines'').
    \2\ The policy document titled Automated Driving Systems 2.0: A
Vision for Safety supersedes, in its entirety, the policy document
published on September 20, 2016, titled Federal Automated Vehicles
Policy.
    \3\ In the Federal Automated Vehicles Policy, NHTSA used the
terms Highly Automated Vehicles (HAVs) (Levels 3 through 5 vehicles)
and L2 systems. Automated Driving Systems 2.0: A Vision for Safety
only applies to Level 3 through 5 systems, reducing the number of
respondents in this collection. Also, for consistency NHTSA now
refers to SAE Level 3 through 5 systems as Automated Driving Systems
(ADSs) instead of HAVs.
    \4\ For more information about SAE J3016, see http://www.sae.org/misc/pdfs/automated_driving.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with its statutory purpose to reduce traffic accidents
and deaths and injuries resulting from traffic accidents,\5\ NHTSA is
amending its recommendations for recordkeeping and disclosure of
information related to automated vehicle technologies by vehicle
manufacturers and other entities as described in Automated Driving
Systems 2.0: A Vision for Safety. Specifically, NHTSA recommends that
manufacturers and other entities assess their ADS-equipped vehicle
against specific safety elements, summarize that assessment, and then
voluntarily disclose that summary as discussed in the section titled
``Voluntary Guidance for Automated Driving Systems'' (hereafter
referred to as ``Voluntary Guidance''). The Voluntary Guidance outlines
recommended best practices, many of which should be commonplace in the
industry, for the safe pre-deployment design, development, and testing
of ADSs prior to commercial sale or operation on public roads. Further,
the Voluntary Guidance identifies key areas manufacturers and other
entities should consider prior to testing or deploying ADS on public
roadways.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 49 U.S.C. Sec.  30101.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To assist States and the public in understanding how safety is
being considered by manufacturers and other entities developing and
testing ADSs, NHTSA encourages documentation, recordkeeping, and
disclosures that aid in that mission. The burden estimates contained in
this notice are based on the Agency's present understanding of the ADS
market and the time associated with following the Voluntary Guidance,
generating a self-assessment, and voluntarily making a summary of that
self-assessment public. NHTSA seeks comment on the burden estimates in
this notice in whole or in part.
    The manner by which NHTSA encourages ADS manufacturers and other
entities to disclose information is through Voluntary Safety Self-
Assessments for ADSs. The Voluntary Safety Self-Assessment would
summarize how the manufacturer or other entity have considered the
safety elements contained in the Voluntary Guidance as shown below:

 System Safety
 Operational Design Domain
 Object and Event Detection and Response
 Fallback (Minimal Risk Condition)
 Validation Methods
 Human Machine Interface
 Vehicle Cybersecurity
 Crashworthiness
 Post-Crash ADS Behavior
 Data Recording
 Consumer Education and Training
 Federal, State and Local Laws

    The Agency expects much of the work associated with consideration
of the safety element in the Voluntary Guidance to be an extension of
good and safe engineering practices already in place. It therefore
believes that manufacturers and other entities will have access to all
the information needed to craft a Voluntary Safety Self-Assessment that
discusses how the safety elements were considered and if they choose,
release a summary of that assessment publicly. Of the manufacturers and
other entities who voluntarily disclose this information, NHTSA
anticipates that most manufacturers and other entities will post the
disclosures online.
    The safety elements are fully described in the Voluntary Guidance
section (section I) of Automated Driving Systems 2.0: A Vision for
Safety, as is the Voluntary Safety Self-Assessment. The Voluntary
Safety Self-Assessment (including the public release of that summary
assessment) is intended to communicate to the public (particularly
States and consumers) that entities are (1) considering the safety
aspects of ADSs; (2) communicating and collaborating with DOT; (3)
encouraging the self-establishments of industry safety norms for ADSs;
and (4) building public trust, acceptance, and confidence through
transparent testing and deployment of ADSs. For each safety element
laid out by the Voluntary Guidance, NHTSA encourages each manufacturer
or entity to include an acknowledgement within the Voluntary Safety
Self-Assessment that indicates either:
     This safety element was considered during product
development efforts for the subject feature; or
     This safety element is not applicable to the subject
product development effort.

Burden Calculations

    There are currently 39 manufacturers that have registered with the
State of California as licensed entities capable of testing automated
systems.\6\ Previously, when NHTSA established this information
collection, only 15 manufacturers had registered with the State of
California. NHTSA expects that this number will continue to increase
over the next three years, and for purposes of estimating the burden of
this collection, NHTSA believes there will be 50 respondents annually
during the three years covered by this information collection request.
This increase takes into account the addition of new entrants as well
as the fact that that many entities have already begun testing of
automated vehicles and thus already included in this figure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/dmv/detail/vr/autonomous/testing (last accessed September 5, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The adjustments from the previous approved collection are a result
of the Voluntary Guidance reducing the number of priority safety design
elements for consideration from 15 to 12 (removal of Privacy,
Registration and Certification, and Ethical Considerations).\7\ It also
removes the data sharing aspect of the Voluntary Guidance, and limits
the scope of the Voluntary Guidance to SAE system Levels 3-5 instead of
also including Level 2. The Voluntary Guidance encourages public
disclosure rather than providing information to NTHSA;

however, this change is not expected to change burden.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ NHTSA acknowledges that Privacy and Ethical Considerations
are also important elements for entities to deliberate. See NHTSA's
Web site for the Agency's approach on each.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA expects the industry burden of following the Voluntary
Guidance to be comprised of efforts entities would already incur in
normal business operation and existing documentation; however, there
may be an increased burden for documentation of procedures and some
minor analysis or review. In calculating the burden for an entity to
consider the safety elements in the Voluntary Guidance, NHTSA has
adjusted its estimates in accordance with the new Voluntary Guidance
from the original estimated annual burden of 1,630 hours for each
reporting entity plus an additional 20 hours for select entities. By
limiting the scope and safety elements in the Voluntary Guidance, the
estimated annual burden for an entity to consider the safety elements
in the Voluntary Guidance is now 835 hours.
    In addition to the estimated annual burden associated with existing
documentation and business operation to follow the Voluntary Guidance,
disclosure of a Voluntary Safety Self-Assessment may involve additional
burden for format and content adherence, varying by safety element.
NHTSA estimates that each entity will spend an additional 600 hours to
use the documentation recommendations contained in the Voluntary
Guidance. This estimate of burden is comprised of efforts to transmit
information from existing format into a summary format that would be
consumable by the public, including data translation, analysis, and
discussion of traditionally-technical information. This is a reduction
from the original estimate of 1,380 burden hours per year.
    Estimated Burden for This Collection: This estimated burden is a
change from the previous collection, which estimated a total burden of
136,050 hours for 45 HAV manufacturers or entities responding and 45 L2
manufacturers or entities responding. As the new Voluntary Guidance
does not contain any recommendations for documentation or disclosure
for L2 manufacturers, NHTSA has removed estimates for L2 manufacturers,
which the agency had estimated as leading to 1,375 burden hours per
entity per year. NHTSA has also increased the estimated respondents for
ADS (previously referred to as HAV) manufacturers or entities from 45
to 50 based on recent trends and has adjusted the burdens for each
safety element based on the new Voluntary Guidance. NHTSA estimates the
total burden associated with conforming with the documentation and
disclosure recommendations contained in the Voluntary Guidance would be
1,435 hours per manufacturer or entity per year. NHTSA estimates that
50 manufacturers will conform with the recommendations contained in the
Voluntary Guidance for a total burden of 71,750 hours. Assuming an
average cost to manufacturers or entities of $100 per hour, the total
estimated annual burden on all respondents to this collection is
$7,175,000, which represents a net decrease of $6,430,000 from the
prior approval.
    The agency seeks comment on the estimated burden hours.

    Authority: 44 U.S.C. Section 3506(c)(2)(A).

Nathaniel Beuse,
Associate Administrator for Vehicle Safety Research.
[FR Doc. 2017-19638 Filed 9-14-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


Reader's Guide MGK 264 CRM: Cathryn O'Connell EPA/ OPPTS/ OPP/ SRRD Page 1 of 5 Reader's Guide to the MGK 264 Reregistration Eligibility Decision ( RED) E Docket # OPP 2005 0040 Publication Date: July 26, 2006 EPA has created this document to provide an organizational structure to the NOctyl bicycloheptene dicarboximide ( MGK 264) E docket. The docket index lists the caption entries sequentially, while this document lists them by subject matter. The Agency is providing the " Readers Guide" to allow the reader to more easily access and navigate the various entries contained in the MGK 264 E docket.

Phase 3 Federal Register and Docket Organizational Documents:

Docket Item 1. Federal Register Notice: MGK 264 Risk Assessments; Notice of Availability Docket Item 2. Reader's Guide to the MGK 264 E Docket # OPP 2004 0040. ( Version 5/ 6/ 2005)

Docket Item 3. Overview of the MGK 264 Risk Assessments Phase 3 Human Health Risk Assessment Documents:

Docket Item 4. MGK 264. HED Response to Error Only Registrant Comments on the MGK 264 Preliminary RED. ( March 2, 2005)

Docket Item 5. N Octyl bicycloheptene dicarboximide ( MGK 264): HED Chapter of the Reregistration Eligibility Decision Document. ( October 5, 2004)

Docket Item 6. Acute and Chronic Dietary Exposure Assessments for the Reregistration Eligibility Decision. ( September 21, 2004)

Docket Item 7. MGK 264: Occupational and Residential Exposure Assessment for the Reregistration Eligibility Decision Document. ( October 1, 2004)

Docket Item 8. N Octyl bicycloheptene dicarboximide ( MGK 264) RED. Product and Residue Chemistry Considerations. ( September 23, 2004) Reader's Guide MGK 264 CRM: Cathryn O'Connell EPA/ OPPTS/ OPP/ SRRD Page 2 of 5 Docket Item 9. MGK 264 First Report of the Hazard Identification Assessment Review Committee. ( June 25, 2004)

Phase 3 Ecological Risk Assessment Documents:

Docket Item 10. Response to Error Only Review of Ecological Risk Assessment and Drinking Water Assessment fro MGK 264 Insecticide Synergist. ( February 17, 2005)

Docket Item 11. Screening Ecological Risk Assessment for the Reregistration of MGK 264 Insecticide Synergist. ( September 29, 2004)

Docket Item 12. Drinking Water Assessment for MGK 264 Insecticide Synergist. ( July 8, 2004)

Phase 5 Federal Register and Docket Organizational Documents:

Docket Item 21. Federal Register Notice: MGK 264 Revised Risk Assessments, Notice of Availability, and Solicitation of Risk Reduction Options.

Docket Item 22. Reader's Guide to the MGK 264 E Docket # OPP 2005 0040. ( Version September 15, 2005)

Phase 5 Human Health Risk Assessments Documents:

Docket Item 23. MGK 264. Health Effects Division ( HED) Phase 4 Response to Phase 3 Public Comments on the MGK 264 Preliminary Reregistration Eligibility Decision ( RED) and Supporting Memos. PC Code 057001; DP Barcode D321193. ( September 15, 2005)

Docket Item 24. Revised Memo to Incorporate Responses to Phase 3 Public Comments: N Octyl bicycloheptene dicarboximide ( MGK 264): HED Chapter of the Reregistration Eligibility Decision Document ( RED). PC Code: 057001, Case #: 2430, DP Barcode: D318872. ( September 9, 2005) Reader's Guide MGK 264 CRM: Cathryn O'Connell EPA/ OPPTS/ OPP/ SRRD Page 3 of 5 Docket Item 25. MGK 264: REVISED Occupational and Residential Exposure Assessment for the Reregistration Eligibility Decision Document ( September 7, 2005)

Docket Item 26. MGK 264 ORE Appendices: Table A1. Occupational Handler Exposure and Risk Estimates ( September 7, 2005)

Docket Item 27. Revised Memo to Incorporate Responses to Phase 3 Public Comments: N Octyl bicycloheptene dicarboximide ( MGK 264) RED  Reregistration Eligibility Decision. Product and Residue Chemistry Considerations. Case No. 2430 ( September 9, 2005)

Phase 5 Ecological Risk Assessment Documents:

Docket Item 28. Response to Public Comments on Drinking Water Assessment for MGK 264 Insecticide Synergist ( August 31, 2005)

Docket Item 29. Drinking Water Assessment for MGK 264 Insecticide Synergist: Surface Water Revision for Ground Spray ( February 17, 2005)

Docket Item 30. Response to Public Comments on Ecological Risk Assessment for MGK 264 Synergist. Cover Memo. ( September 14, 2005)

Docket Item 31. MGK 264 Pubic Comment Response( EFED) ( August 25, 2005)

Additional Phase 5 Documents:

Docket Item 32. Pyrethrins Consultation Letter from Michael McGeehin, Dept. of Health and Human Services, CDC. This document also addresses MGK 264. ( August 1, 2005)

Final RED Federal Register and Docket Organizational Document:

Docket Item 41. Federal Register Notice: MGK 264 Reregistration Eligibility Decision; Notice of Availability. Reader's Guide MGK 264 CRM: Cathryn O'Connell EPA/ OPPTS/ OPP/ SRRD Page 4 of 5 Docket Item 42. Reader's Guide to the MGK 264 E Docket # OPP 2005 0040. ( This document, version July 26, 2006)

Piperonyl Butoxide Reregistration Eligibility Decision ( RED) Document:

Docket Item 43. Reregistration Eligibility Decision ( RED) for MGK 264. ( June 26, 2006)

RED Human Health Risk Assessments Documents:

Docket Item 44. Revised Memo to Incorporate Reponses to Phase 5 Public Comments. N Octyl bicycloheptene dicarboximide ( MGK 264): HED Chapter of the Reregistration Eligibility Decision Document ( RED). ( March 20, 2006)

Docket Item 45. MGK 264. Health Effects Division ( HED) Phase 6 Response to Phase 5 Comments on the MGK 264 Preliminary Reregistration Eligibility Decision ( RED) and Supporting Memos. ( May 11, 2006)

Docket Item 46. MGK 264 Indoor Handheld Fogger Applicator Scenario: Comparison of Prallethrin Inhalation Study and Florida Greenhouse Study. ( July 5, 2006)

Docket Item 47. MGK 264: REVISED Occupational and Residential Exposure Assessment for the Reregistration Eligibility Decision Document. ( March 10, 2006)

Docket Item 48. Appendices for REVISED Occupational and Residential Exposure Assessment for the Reregistration Eligibility Decision Document. ( March 10, 2006)

Docket Item 49. Review of MGK 264 Incident Reports. ( October 6, 2004)

RED Ecological Risk Assessment Documents:

Docket Item 50. Revised Screening Ecological Risk Assessment for the Reregistration of MGK 264 Insecticide Synergist. ( July 14, 2006) Reader's Guide MGK 264 CRM: Cathryn O'Connell EPA/ OPPTS/ OPP/ SRRD Page 5 of 5 Docket Item 51. Response to Comments of Phase 5 Period About Water Quality, and Other Issues on the Revised Draft EFED RED Chapters for Pyrethrins, PBO and MGK 264. ( January 30, 2006)


[Federal Register: May 12, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 91)]
[Notices]
[Page 26748]
[DOCID:fr12my10-51]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

 [Docket No. ER10-1171-000]

Bluco Energy, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based
Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization

May 5, 2010.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Bluco Energy, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with
an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a
request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a
copy of that document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of
liability, is May 25, 2010.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-11241 Filed 5-11-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P