[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 222 (Thursday, November 17, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 81200-81202]
[FR Doc No: 2016-27590]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-79279; File No. SR-CBOE-2016-074]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Chicago Board Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a
Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fees Schedule

November 10, 2016.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on October 27, 2016, Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``CBOE'' or the ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III 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 text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Web site (http://www.cboe.com/AboutCBOE/CBOELegalRegulatoryHome.aspx),
at the Exchange's Office of the Secretary, and at the Commission's
Public Reference Room.

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 Exchange 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
    The Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule. Specifically, the
Exchange proposes to amend its Fees Schedule with respect to waiving
transaction fees incurred as a result of transactions that compress or
reduce certain Clearing Trading Permit Holder (``TPH'') open positions.
    By way of background, SEC Rule 15c3-1, Net Capital Requirements for
Brokers or Dealers (``Net Capital Rules''), requires that every
registered broker-dealer maintain certain specified minimum levels of
capital. The primary purpose of these rules is to regulate the ability
of broker-dealers to meet their financial obligations to customers and
other creditors. All of the broker-dealers that are clearing members of
the Options Clearing Corporation (``OCC'') are subject to the Net
Capital Rules. However, a subset of OCC's clearing members are
subsidiaries of U.S. bank holding companies and these broker-dealers,
through their affiliation with their parent U.S. bank holding
companies, must also comply with bank regulatory capital requirements
pursuant to rule-making required under the Dodd-Frank Wall Street
Reform and Consumer Protection Act (``Dodd-Frank''). Recent rule-making
enacted under Dodd-Frank now requires U.S. bank holding companies to
hold substantially more bank regulatory capital than would otherwise be
required under the Net Capital Rules. Additionally, due to the large
contract size of S&P 500 Index (``SPX'') options, open interest in
certain SPX series can result in extremely large bank regulatory
capital requirements, even though the positions incur minimal
requirements under the Net Capital Rules. As such, transactions that
would result in the closing of this open interest have a beneficial
impact on the bank regulatory capital requirements of the Clearing
TPH's parent company with a minimal impact on regulatory capital
required under the capital rules. The Exchange notes that most of these
open positions are in out-of-the-money options and certain spread
positions that are essentially riskless strategies because they have
little or no market exposure. Particularly, the Exchange notes that
given the nature of these options, there is minimal chance for large
losses to occur, yet these positions are still subject to large bank
regulatory capital requirements. Exchange transaction fees, however, if
not waived, could discourage market participants from closing these
positions out even though those market participants may also prefer to
close them rather than carry them to expiration.\3\ Accordingly, in
order to encourage the compression of certain out-of-the-money and
riskless option positions, the Exchange previously adopted a rebate of
all transactions fees for transactions that close these positions,
provided they meet certain criteria, as described more fully below.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ For example, an out-of-the-money SPX option market-maker
transaction may be worth only a few pennies per contract, but would
cost approximately $0.33 per contract ($0.20 transaction fee plus
$0.13 SPX Index License Surcharge) to close out.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 76842 (January 6,
2016) 81 FR 1455 (January 12, 2016) (SR-CBOE-2015-117).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The rebate of transaction fees \5\ is currently limited to those
transactions that the Exchange believes would have the greatest impact
on bank regulatory capital requirements but are also constrained to
those positions that have little economic risk associated with them.
Specifically, to be eligible for a rebate, a transaction must be: (i)
For a complex order with at least five (5) different series in S&P 500
Index (SPX) options, SPX Weeklys (SPXW) options or p.m.-settled SPX
options (SPXPM), (ii) a closing-only transaction or, if the transaction
involves a Firm order (origin code ``F''), an opening transaction
executed to facilitate a compression of option positions for a market-
maker or joint-back office (``JBO'') account; (iii) for a position with
a required capital charge equal to the minimum capital charge under OCC
rules RBH Calculator or a position comprised of option series with a
delta of ten (10) or less and (iv) entered between the first business
day following a quarterly expiration through the last business day of
that quarter.\6\ To receive a rebate, a rebate request with supporting
documentation must also be submitted to the Exchange within 3 business
days of the transactions. The Exchange proposes to amend the last
criteria (i.e., the time period for which a Trading Permit Holder can
enter these transactions and be eligible for the rebate). Specifically,
the Exchange proposes to provide that in addition to meeting the first
three criteria described above, the transaction would be eligible for a
rebate if entered on any of the final three (3) trading days of any
calendar month. The proposed rule change allows TPHs to mitigate their
regulatory capital requirements on a monthly basis, instead of
quarterly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Rebate of transaction fees would include the transaction fee
assessed along with any other surcharges assessed per contract
(e.g., the Index License Surcharge).
    \6\ For example, the third quarter of 2016 standard-Friday
expiration occurred on September 16, 2016. For that quarter,
qualifying transactions needed to be entered no earlier than
September 19, 2016 and no later than September 30, 2016.

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

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act'') and the rules and
regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular,
the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.\7\ Specifically, the
Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the
Section 6(b)(5) \8\ requirements that the rules of an exchange be
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 facilitation
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. Additionally,
the Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act,\9\ which requires that Exchange rules
provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and
other charges among its Trading Permit Holders and other persons using
its facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes providing a rebate of fees for transactions
that compress certain out-of-the-money and riskless options positions
is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because these
positions would result in extremely large bank regulatory capital
requirements for Clearing TPHs even though there is minimal chance for
large losses to occur. Additionally, these positions have little or no
economic benefit to the TPHs that hold the positions, who would likely
prefer to close them but for the associated transaction fees. The fee
rebate therefore allows TPHs to close out of these positions that are
needlessly burdensome on themselves and Clearing TPHs.
    The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is reasonable,
equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because TPHs can now mitigate
their regulatory capital requirements on a monthly basis, instead of
quarterly. The proposed change would encourage the closing of positions
at the end of each month that needlessly result in burdensome capital
requirements that, once closed, would alleviate the capital requirement
constraints on TPHs and improve overall market liquidity by freeing
capital currently tied up in certain out-of-the-money and riskless
positions. The Exchange also notes that the proposed amended
requirement would apply to all TPHs seeking a rebate for these
transactions.

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes will
impose any burden on competition that are not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not
believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on
intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the Act because it applies to all market participants in
the same manner with positions that meet the eligible criteria. The
proposed change would encourage the closing of positions, on a monthly
basis, that needlessly result in burdensome capital requirements that,
once closed, would alleviate the capital requirement constraints on
TPHs and improve overall market liquidity by freeing capital currently
tied up in certain out-of-the-money and riskless positions. The
Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any
burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the proposed rule
change applies only to CBOE. To the extent that the proposed change
makes CBOE a more attractive marketplace for market participants at
other exchanges, such market participants are welcome to become CBOE
market participants.

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

    The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the
proposed rule change.

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

    The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \10\ and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 \11\
thereunder. 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 necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission will institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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-CBOE-2016-074 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Brent J. Fields,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CBOE-2016-074. 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 such 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-CBOE-2016-074, and should be
submitted on or before December 8, 2016.

For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to
delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-27590 Filed 11-16-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: January 29, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 19)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 4693]
[DOCID:fr29ja10-6]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2009-1129]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Inner Harbor Navigational Canal,
New Orleans, 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
Senator Ted Hickey (Leon C. Simon) Bascule Bridge across the Inner
Harbor Navigational Canal, mile 4.6, at New Orleans, LA. The deviation
is necessary to ensure the safety of pedestrians as they bike across
the bridge for the Ochsner Ironman 70.3 New Orleans event. This
deviation allows the bridge to remain closed during the event.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 5 a.m. to 2 p.m. on April 18,
2010.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2009-1129 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2009-1129 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 e-mail Lindsey Middleton, Bridge Administration Branch;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you
have questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The bridge owner approved the request for
the closure of the Senator Ted Hickey (Leon C. Simon) Bascule Bridge on
Seabrook Highway crossing the Inner Harbor Navigational Canal, mile
4.6, in New Orleans, LA. In the closed-to-navigation position, the
vertical clearance of the bridge is 45 feet above mean sea level.
Currently, according to 33 CFR 117.458 (c), The draw of the Leon C.
Simon Blvd. (Seabrook) bridge, mile 4.6, shall open on signal; except
that, from 7 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. Monday through
Friday, the draw need not be opened. This deviation allows the draw
span of the bridge to remain closed to navigation between 5 a.m. and 2
p.m. on April 18, 2010 while the Ironman contenders travel across the
bridge as part of the 56 mile bike course. Navigation on the waterway
consists mainly of tugs with tows. As a result of coordination between
the Coast Guard and the waterway users, it has been determined that
this closure will not have a significant effect on these vessels. The
Coast Guard will inform users through the Local and Broadcast Notice to
Mariners of the closure period. There are alternate routes available to
vessel traffic. Vessels that can pass under the bridge in the closed-
to-navigation position can do so at any time. The bridge will not be
able to open for emergencies.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the drawbridge must return to
its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated
time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: January 19, 2010.
David M. Frank,
Bridge Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2010-1801 Filed 1-28-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 5, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 43597]
[FR Doc No: 2016-15781]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER16-1947-000]

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

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of
Atlantic Energy MD, 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 July 18, 2016.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an
eSubscription link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: June 27, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-15781 Filed 7-1-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 156 (Monday, August 13, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39892-39894]
[FR Doc No: 2018-17248]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2018-0269; FRL-9981-93-Region 1]

Air Plan Approval; Maine; Infrastructure Requirement for the 2010
Nitrogen Dioxide National Ambient Air Quality Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Maine.
This revision addresses the interstate transport requirements of the
Clean Air Act (CAA) with respect to the 2010 primary nitrogen dioxide
(NO2) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). This
action approves Maine's demonstration that the State is meeting its
obligations regarding the interstate transport of NO2
emissions into other states. This action is being taken under the CAA.

DATES: This rule is effective on September 12, 2018.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R01-OAR-2018-0269. All documents in the docket
are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed
in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available at https://www.regulations.gov or at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA
Region 1 Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air Quality
Planning Unit, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, Boston, MA. EPA
requests that if at all possible, you contact the contact listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection.
The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through
Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Bird, Office of Ecosystem
Protection, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100 (Mail Code OEP 05-2),
Boston, MA 01209-3912, tel.<PHONE_NUMBER>, email [email protected].

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

Table of Contents

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

I. Background and Purpose

    On May 25, 2018 (83 FR 24264), EPA published a Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (NPRM) regarding specific Clean Air Act requirements
applicable to the State of Maine. In particular, the NPRM proposed
approval of Maine's February 21, 2018, SIP submittal for the 2010
primary NO2 NAAQS as it pertains to section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) of the CAA.
    Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requires a state's SIP to include
provisions prohibiting any source or other type of emissions activity
within the state from emitting any air pollutant in amounts that will
contribute significantly to nonattainment, or interfere with
maintenance, of the NAAQS in another state. The two clauses of this
section are referred to as prong 1 (significant contribution to
nonattainment) and prong 2 (interference with maintenance of the
NAAQS).
    In the NPRM, EPA proposed to approve Maine's February 21, 2018,
infrastructure SIP submittal for the 2010 primary NO2 NAAQS,
concluding Maine's SIP submittal adequately addresses prong 1 and prong
2 requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 primary
NO2 NAAQS. The rationale for EPA's proposed action is
explained in the NPRM and will not be restated here.

II. Response to Comments

    In response to the May 25, 2018 NPRM, we received a number of
anonymous comments that address subjects outside the scope of our
proposed action, do not explain (or provide a legal basis for) how the
proposed action should differ in any way, and make no specific mention
of the proposed action. Consequently, those comments are not germane to
this rulemaking and require no further response.
    EPA received one relevant comment that referred specifically to the
proposed rulemaking on the Maine's infrastructure SIP submittal for the
2010 primary NO2 NAAQS.
    Comment: The commenter suggests that, under the Plain Writing Act
of 2010, EPA should not have used the word ``promulgated'' in the NPRM
for this action.
    Response: The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (``PWA'' or the ``Act''),
Public Law

111-274, 124 Stat. 2861, requires EPA to ``use plain writing in every
covered document of the agency that the agency issues or substantially
revises.'' See PWA section 4(b). The Act defines ``plain writing'' as
``writing that is clear, concise, well-organized, and follows other
best practices appropriate to the subject or field and intended
audience.'' See PWA section 3(3). The Office of Management and Budget
(``OMB'') published guidance \1\ on the Act that encourages agencies to
follow Federal Plain Language Guidelines available at
www.plainlanguage.gov that recommend agencies avoid certain words,
including ``promulgate.'' Neither the PWA nor the guidelines, however,
bar its use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ OMB, Final Guidance on Implementing the Plain Writing Act of
2010 (April 13, 2011), available at https://plainlanguage.gov/law/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the NPRM, EPA used forms of ``promulgate'' twice as follows:
``[o]n February 9, 2010, EPA promulgated a new 1-hour primary NAAQS for
NO2 at a level of 100 parts per billion (ppb), based on a 3-
year average of the 98th percentile of the yearly distribution of 1-
hour daily maximum concentrations'' and ``states are required to submit
SIPs meeting the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2) within
three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS'' (emphasis
added). The Clean Air Act specifically requires EPA to ``promulgate''
NAAQS, CAA section 109(a)(1)(B), and requires states to submit
infrastructure SIPs to EPA within three years after the
``promulgation'' of a NAAQS, CAA section 110(a)(1). EPA agrees that it
can sometimes be clearer to avoid words like ``promulgate,'' but EPA
appropriately used ``promulgated'' and ``promulgation'' in the NPR to
refer specifically to these formal CAA requirements. In any event, the
comment does not suggest that the commenter misunderstood EPA's
proposed action due to the use of these words. See PWA section 2. Nor
does the commenter state that EPA should disapprove Maine's submittal.
Therefore, we are approving the SIP submittal as proposed.

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving Maine's February 21, 2018, SIP revision addressing
prongs 1 and 2 of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2010 primary
NO2 NAAQS. EPA is taking final action to approve this SIP
submittal because Maine's SIP includes adequate provisions to prevent
emissions sources within the State from significantly contributing to
nonattainment or interfering with maintenance of this standard in any
other state.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     This action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory
action because this action is not significant under Executive Order
12866.
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    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 October 12, 2018. 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).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: August 6, 2018.
Alexandra Dunn,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
    Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations
is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart U--Maine

0
2. Section 52.1020(e) is amended by adding an entry titled ``Interstate
Transport SIP to meet Infrastructure Requirements for the 2010 1-hour
NO2 NAAQS'' at the end of the table to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1020   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) Nonregulatory.

                                              Maine Non Regulatory
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Applicable           State
   Name of non regulatory SIP       geographic or    submittal date/  EPA approved date        Explanations
           provision             nonattainment area  effective date          \3\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Interstate Transport SIP to      Statewide.........       2/21/2018  8/13/2018, [Insert  This approval addresses
 meet Infrastructure                                                  Federal Register    Prongs 1 and 2 of CAA
 Requirements for the 2010 1-                                         citation].          section
 hour NO2 NAAQS.                                                                          110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
                                                                                only.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ In order to determine the EPA effective date for a specific provision listed in this table, consult the
  Federal Register notice cited in this column for the particular provision.

[FR Doc. 2018-17248 Filed 8-10-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 192 (Thursday, October 5, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46606-46607]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21454]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2017-0006]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Reinstatement of an
Information Collection: Practices of Household Goods Brokers;
Correction

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments; correction.

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

SUMMARY: This document makes a correction to a notice published in the
Federal Register on August 16, 2014, regarding the reinstatement of an
Information Collection Request for the Practices of Household Goods
Brokers. The correction involves the inclusion of a citation and
clarification in the explanation of the reduction of burden hours.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Monique Riddick, Commercial
Enforcement and Investigations

Division, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration, West Building 6th Floor, 1200 New Jersey Avenue
SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For FMCSA's notice published on August 16,
2017, (82 FR 38989), the following corrections are made:
    In column three of page 38988, in the Summary paragraph, the last
sentence should read ``The reinstatement of this ICR is necessary to
support FMCSA's responsibility to ensure consumer protection in the
transportation of household goods (HHG).''
    In column one of page 38989, add the following sentence to be the
first sentence in the BACKGROUND section: ``The reinstatement of this
ICR is necessary to support the requirements of subpart B of 49 CFR
part 371 and FMCSA's responsibility to ensure consumer protection in
the transportation of household goods (HHG).''
    In column two of page 38989, the paragraph that begins ``With this
renewal'' should read: With this renewal, FMCSA makes a change to the
annual burden hours associated with this ICR. There is a reduction of
19,522 annual burden hours due to the removal of 1,000 burden-hours
associated with new entrant household goods brokers setting up a
separate accounting system to comply with 49 CFR 371.13. FMCSA no
longer believes the inclusion of such burden hours is necessary as such
usual and customary actions to comply with regulatory requirements do
not need to be included in burden calculations. Further, the number of
burden hours is reduced due to a reduced estimate of the number of HHG
brokers that are impacted by this information collection.

    Issued on: September 27, 2017.
Kelly Regal,
Associate Administrator, Office of Research and Information Technology.
[FR Doc. 2017-21454 Filed 10-4-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register: April 24, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 78)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 20237-20242]
[DOCID:fr24ap07-5]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 80

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0841; FRL-8304-1]
RIN 2060-A034

Regulation of Fuels and Fuel Additives: Extension of the
Reformulated Gasoline Program to Illinois Portion of the St. Louis,
Illinois-Missouri Ozone Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Under section 211(k)(6) of the Clean Air Act, the
Administrator of EPA shall require the sale of reformulated gasoline
(RFG) in an ozone nonattainment area classified as marginal, moderate,
serious or severe upon the application of the Governor of the state in
which the nonattainment area is located. This final action extends the
Act's prohibition against the sale of conventional gasoline (i.e.,
gasoline that is not RFG) to the Illinois portion of the St. Louis,
Illinois-Missouri moderate ozone nonattainment area. The Agency will
implement this prohibition for refiners and all other persons in the
fuel distribution system other than retailers and wholesale purchaser-
consumers on June 1, 2007. For retailers and wholesale purchaser-
consumers, EPA's final action implements the prohibition on July 1,
2007. As of the compliance date for retailers and wholesale purchaser-
consumers, this area will be treated as a covered area for all purposes
of the Federal RFG program.

DATES: This final rule is effective April 20, 2007.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2006-0841. All documents in the docket are listed on the
http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some

information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov
 or in hard copy at the Air Docket, EPA/DC, EPA

West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the Air
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kurt Gustafson, Transportation and
Regional Programs Division (Mail Code 6406J), Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under section 211(k)(6) of the Clean Air
Act, as amended (Act), the Administrator of EPA must require the sale
of reformulated gasoline in an ozone nonattainment area classified as
Marginal, Moderate, Serious, or Severe upon the application of the
governor of the state in which the nonattainment area is located. This
final action extends the prohibition set forth in section 211(k)(5)
against the sale of conventional (i.e., non-reformulated) gasoline to
the Illinois portion of the St. Louis, Illinois-Missouri moderate ozone
nonattainment area. For all persons other than retailers and wholesale
purchaser-consumers (i.e., refiners, importers,and distributors), this
rule establishes the implementation date of the prohibition in Section
211(k)(5) as June 1, 2007. For retailers and wholesale purchaser-
consumers, this rule establishes the implementation date of the
prohibition in section 211(k)(5) on July 1, 2007. As of the
implementation date for retailers and wholesale purchaser-consumers,
the Illinois portion of the St. Louis, Illinois-Missouri ozone
nonattainment area will be a covered area for all purposes in the
Federal RFG program.
    The final preamble and regulatory language are also available
electronically from the Federal Register Web site or via the docket at
the http://www.regulations.gov site listed above.

General Information

Does This Action Apply to Me?

    This action may affect you if you produce, distribute, or sell
gasoline for use in the Illinois portion of the St. Louis, Illinois-
Missouri ozone nonattainment area.
    The table below gives some examples of entities that may have to
comply with the regulations. However, since these are only examples,
you should carefully examine these and other existing regulations in 40
CFR part 80. If you have any questions, please contact the person
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

    Regulated entities: Entities potentially regulated by this action
are those which produce, supply or distribute motor gasoline. Regulated
categories and entities include:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               NAICS Codes                    Examples of potentially regulated
                  Category                         \a\        SIC Codes \b\                entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry...................................          324110            2911  Petroleum Refiners.
Industry...................................          422710            5171  Gasoline Marketers and
                                                                              Distributors.
                                                     422720            5172  ...................................
Industry...................................          484220            4212  Gasoline Carriers.
                                                     484230            4213  ...................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).
\b\ Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system code.

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. This table lists the types of entities that EPA is now aware
could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities
not listed in the table could also be regulated. To determine whether
your business is regulated by this action, you should carefully examine
the list of areas covered by the reformulated gasoline program in Sec.
80.70 of title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. If you have
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.
    The remainder of this final rulemaking is organized in the
following sections:

I. Background
    A. Opt-In Provision/Process
    B. EPA Procedures and Illinois Opt-In Request
II. Final Action
III. Response to Comments
IV. Environmental Impact
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act
    D. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health & Safety Risks
    I. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Effect
Energy Supply
    J. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
    K. Statutory Authority
    L. Congressional Review Act

I. Background

A. Opt-In Provision/Process

    As part of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Congress added a
new subsection (k) to section 211 of the Act. Subsection (k) prohibits
the sale of conventional gasoline (i.e., gasoline that EPA has not
certified as reformulated) in certain ozone nonattainment areas
beginning January 1, 1995. Section 211(k)(10)(D) defines the areas
covered by the reformulated gasoline (RFG) program as the nine ozone
nonattainment areas having a 1980 population in excess of 250,000 and
having the highest ozone design values during the period 1987 through
1989.\1\ In addition, under section 211(k)(10)(D), any area
reclassified as a severe ozone nonattainment area under section 181(b)
is also included in the RFG program. EPA first published final
regulations for the RFG program on February 16, 1994. See 59 FR 7716.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Applying these criteria, EPA has determined the nine covered
areas to be the metropolitan areas including Los Angeles, Houston,
New York City, Baltimore, Chicago, San Diego, Philadelphia, Hartford
and Milwaukee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Certain other ozone nonattainment areas may be included in the
program at the request of the Governor of the State in which the area
is located. Section 211(k)(6)(A) provides that upon the application of
a Governor, EPA shall apply the prohibition against selling
conventional gasoline in ``any area in the State classified under
subpart 2 of Part D of Title I as a marginal, moderate, serious or
severe'' ozone nonattainment area. Subparagraph 211(k)(6)(A) further
provides that EPA is to apply the prohibition as of the date the
Administrator ``deems appropriate, not later than January 1, 1995, or 1
year after such application is received, whichever is later.'' In some
cases the effective date may be extended for such an area as provided
in section 211(k)(6)(B) based on a determination by EPA that there is
``insufficient domestic capacity to produce'' RFG. EPA is to publish a
Governor's application in the Federal Register.

B. EPA Procedures and Illinois Opt-In Request

    EPA received an application July 10, 2006 from the Honorable Rod R.
Blagojevich, Governor of the State of Illinois, for the Illinois
portion of the St. Louis, Illinois-Missouri ozone nonattainment area to
be included in the reformulated gasoline program. The State indicated
that the RFG program would provide the area with needed reductions in
ozone-forming emissions and air toxics. The Governor requested a
January 1, 2007 implementation date. EPA published the Governor's
letter in the Federal Register, as required by section 211(k)(6). On
December 27, 2006 (71 FR 77690) EPA proposed to extend the RFG program
to the Illinois portion of the St. Louis, Illinois-Missouri ozone
nonattainment area by setting two implementation dates. EPA requested
comment on start dates and proposed an effective date of May 1, 2007
for refiners, importers, and distributors and June 1, 2007 for
retailers and wholesale purchaser-consumers.
    Today EPA is taking final action on that NPRM and establishing
effective dates for opt in of the Illinois portion of the St. Louis,
Illinois-Missouri ozone nonattainment area to the RFG program. For all
persons other than retailers and wholesale purchaser-consumers (i.e.,
refiners, importers, and distributors), this rule establishes the
implementation date of the prohibition in section 211(k)(5) as June 1,
2007. For retailers and wholesale purchaser-consumers, this rule
establishes the implementation date of the prohibition in Section
211(k)(5) as July 1, 2007. As of the implementation date for retailers
and wholesale purchaser-consumers, the Illinois portion of the St.
Louis, Illinois-Missouri ozone nonattainment area will be a covered
area for all purposes in the Federal RFG program.
    After publication of the NPRM, EPA received a request for a public
hearing. EPA published a notice in the Federal

Register announcing that a public hearing would be held on February 21,
2007, in Chicago, Illinois, and extending the comment period until
March 23, 2007 (30 days after the hearing). The transcript of the
public hearing has been placed in the docket for this action.

II. Final Action

    The Federal RFG program includes seasonal requirements. Summertime
RFG must meet certain VOC control requirements to reduce emissions of
VOCs, an ozone precursor. Under the RFG program, there are two
compliance dates for VOC-controlled RFG. At the refinery level, and all
other points in the distribution system other than the retail level,
compliance with RFG VOC-control requirements is required from May 1 to
September 15. At the retail level (service stations and wholesale
purchaser-consumers), compliance is required from June 1 to September
15. See 40 CFR 80.78 (a)(1)(v). Pipeline requirements and demands for
RFG from the supply industry drive refineries to establish their own
internal compliance date earlier than May so that they can then assure
that terminals are capable of meeting the RFG VOC-control requirements
by May 1.
    EPA regulations specify that the RFG covered areas of certain
states that are in ``VOC control Region 1'', while those of other
states are in ``VOC control Region 2.'' VOC requirements for the RFG
sold in these Regions differ somewhat. EPA regulations also provide
that RFG in covered areas which are partially in VOC control Region 1
and partially in VOC control Region 2 are included in VOC control
Region 1, except in the case of the Philadelphia-Wilmington-Trenton
CMSA which shall be included in VOC control Region 2 (see 40 CFR
80.71(c)). Since the St. Louis, Illinois-Missouri ozone nonattainment
area is partially in VOC control Region 2 and partially in VOC control
Region 1, the Illinois portion of the St. Louis, Illinois-Missouri
nonattainment area opting into the program under this action shall be
included in VOC control Region 1. This means that RFG in the Illinois
portion of the St. Louis, Illinois-Missouri ozone nonattainment area
must comply with the emission standards for VOC control for Region 1
which are slightly more stringent than those for Region 2 (see 40 CFR
80.41).
    Based on our evaluation of the appropriate lead time and start
date(s) and pursuant to the Governor's letter and the provisions of
section 211(k)(6), EPA is today adopting regulations that apply the
prohibitions of subsection 211(k)(5) to the Illinois portion of the St.
Louis, Illinois-Missouri ozone nonattainment area for all persons other
than retailers and wholesale purchaser-consumers as of June 1, 2007.
This date applies to the refinery level and all other points in the
distribution system other than the retail level. For retailers and
wholesale purchaser-consumers, EPA is adopting regulations that apply
the prohibitions of subsection 211(k)(5) to the Illinois portion of the
St. Louis, Illinois-Missouri ozone nonattainment area on July 1, 2007.
As of the implementation date for retailers and wholesale purchaser-
consumers, this area will be treated as a covered area for all purposes
of the Federal RFG program.
    The application of the prohibition of section 211(k)(5) to the
Illinois portion of the St. Louis, Illinois-Missouri ozone
nonattainment area could take effect no later than July 10, 2007, under
section 211(k)(6)(A), which stipulates that the effective program date
must be no ``later than January 1, 1995 or 1 year after [the
Governor's] application is received, whichever is later.'' The Governor
of Illinois's request was dated July 10, 2006.
    EPA believes the implementation dates adopted today achieve a
reasonable balance between requiring the earliest possible start dates
to achieve air quality benefits for the Illinois portion of the St.
Louis, Illinois-Missouri ozone nonattainment area and providing
adequate lead time for industry to prepare for program implementation.
These dates will provide environmental benefits by allowing the
Illinois portion of the St. Louis, Illinois-Missouri ozone
nonattainment area to achieve VOC reduction benefits for most of the
2007 VOC control season. As in other fuel rules, EPA believes it is
appropriate to apply new requirements to refiners and distributors
thirty days prior to the date that they are applicable to retailers and
wholesale purchasers-consumers. This allows the retailers and wholesale
purchasers-consumers time to empty their tanks of the older product
they may have purchased immediately before the implementation date for
refiners and distributors.
    EPA has concluded, based on its analysis of available information,
that the refining and distribution industry's capacity to supply
Federal RFG to the Illinois portion of the St. Louis, Illinois-Missouri
ozone nonattainment area this summer exceeds the estimated demand. EPA
has also concluded that the implementation dates adopted today provide
adequate lead time to industry to set up storage and sales agreements
to ensure supply of RFG to the East St. Louis ozone nonattainment area.

III. Response to Comments

    Several parties including the State of Illinois, the State of
Missouri, BP, and the Illinois Petroleum Council submitted comments
supporting the proposed effective dates. Four parties, an association
representing the interests of Independent gasoline marketers, and three
retail marketing companies, submitted adverse comments on the proposed
rulemaking. The adverse comments also addressed issues that were
outside the scope of the proposal (e.g., whether or not RFG should even
be implemented). EPA is responding to relevant portions of the adverse
comments in this section.
    First, the commenters expressed concern that gasoline shortages in
the St. Louis area could result from EPA's granting of the opt-in
request, due to the need to supply additional reformulated gasoline to
the Illinois portion of the St. Louis, Illinois-Missouri nonattainment
area (the Missouri portion already uses RFG). The commenters indicated
that difficulties already exist in obtaining RFG for the Missouri
portion of the St. Louis ozone nonattainment area, and that these
difficulties would get worse with additional demand for RFG if EPA
finalized its proposed opt-in for the Illinois portion of the St. Louis
nonattainment area. Some of the commenters surmised that supply in the
area benefits from two supply options: supplies of RFG being available
on the Missouri side and low RVP fuel being available on the Illinois
side, both of which can be supplied to East St. Louis.
    Section 211(k)(6)(A) provides the Administrator broad discretion to
establish an appropriate effective date for opt-in areas. The effective
date shall be no later than one year after the governor's request to
opt in is received, which in this case would be July 10, 2007, unless
EPA determines that there is insufficient domestic capacity. Factors
EPA generally considers in setting effective dates include, but are not
limited to, supply logistics, the number of current and potential
suppliers for that market, whether such suppliers have experience
producing RFG or the capability to produce RFG, intent of suppliers to
withdraw from the market, availability of adequate gasoline volumes,
and the amount of lead time needed by suppliers and the distribution
industry to set up storage and sales agreements to ensure supply. By
evaluating these factors, EPA can make a determination as to whether
industry's capacity to supply RFG for an

opt-in area meets or exceeds the demand.
    Under section 211(k)(6)(B) the Administrator may determine, after
consultation with the Secretary of Energy, that there is ``insufficient
domestic capacity'' to produce RFG. Despite the comments received by
marketers and retailers, described above, EPA is not making such a
determination in this case. EPA has consulted with the Department of
Energy (DOE) and with refiners supplying gasoline to the area of
concern, and has concluded that there is adequate domestic capability
to produce RFG to meet the current demand nationwide as well as the
addition of the Illinois portion of the St. Louis, Illinois-Missouri
nonattainment area in the summer of 2007.
    EPA notes that no comments were received from refiners or bulk
terminal operators concerned about storage capacity or supply. We note
in the docket that EPA has spoken with the major suppliers to the area
and none have expressed supply concerns. To the contrary, the Illinois
Petroleum Council submitted written comment in support of the proposal.
The elimination of the need to supply an additional grade of fuel (i.e.
7.2 RVP fuel now required in East St. Louis) will not adversely impact
supply as it is our understanding from consultation with these refiners
that the capacity which is currently used to produce the 7.2 psi blend
will be converted to produce additional RFG supplies for the Region.
    The commenters also expressed concern that the price differential
between reformulated gasoline sold in the Illinois side of the St.
Louis covered area and that sold on the Missouri side would impact
marketers. They also point to a vehicle owner's ability to refuel in
either conventional gas areas or the Missouri RFG area where they may
expect a lower price. EPA notes that, in this action, it is simply
setting an effective date for the Illinois portion of the St. Louis,
Illinois-Missouri ozone nonattainment area, and does not have the
discretion under Section 211(k)(6) to deny the governor's request to
opt in. Therefore, even if a price differential would result in some
drivers choosing to refuel in the Missouri portion of the nonattainment
area, or a non-covered area, versus the Illinois side, that result
would not provide a basis for EPA's denial of the governor's request.
Moreover, EPA is setting the effective date for the opt in close to one
year from receipt of the governor's request. Additional significant
delay is not permitted under the Clean Air Act absent a finding of
inadequate supply. As discussed above, EPA has determined that there
will not be any RFG supply issues for the opt in area covered by
today's rule. In addition, postponing the effective date would likely
not affect, in the long-term, any price differential that may exist,
and would result in the loss of important and needed emissions
reductions for the summer of 2007.

IV. Environmental Impact

    The Federal RFG program typically results in reductions in ozone-
forming emissions and air toxics. Reductions in ozone precursors are
environmentally significant because they lead to reductions in ozone
formation, with the associated improvements in human health and
welfare. Exposure to ground-level ozone (or smog) can cause respiratory
problems, chest pain, and coughing and may worsen bronchitis,
emphysema, and asthma. Animal studies suggest that long-term exposure
(months to years) to ozone can damage lung tissue and may lead to
chronic respiratory illness. Reductions in emissions of toxic air
pollutants are environmentally important because they carry significant
benefits for human health and welfare primarily by reducing the number
of cancer cases each year.
    Illinois EPA analyzed the emissions benefits which could be
achieved by switching from 7.2 RVP fuel to RFG. Using the U.S. EPA's
MOBILE6a model, Illinois projected that year 2010 motor vehicle VOC
emissions could be reduced by 5.4 percent and carbon monoxide by 2.2
percent. The use of RFG in the Illinois portion of the St. Louis,
Illinois-Missouri nonattainment area would also decrease benzene
emissions by 75 tons per year, which equates to a 44 percent reduction
from motor vehicles. On a total toxic emissions basis, the use of RFG
would reduce emissions of the five primary motor vehicle related air
toxics by 63 tons per year in 2010, a total percentage reduction of
23.5 percent.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order (EO)12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and
is therefore not subject to review under the EO. EPA notes that the
economic impacts of the RFG program were assessed in EPA's Regulatory
Impact Analysis for the 1994 RFG rules. See 59 FR 7810-7811 (February
16, 1994). In that analysis the production cost of RFG was estimated to
be 4 to 8 cents more per gallon than conventional gasoline. Since
conventional gas regulations have evolved since that time to be more
like RFG and since the State has a low RVP requirement that also more
closely resembles RFG, EPA expects the costs of RFG in the Illinois
portion of the St. Louis, Illinois-Missouri ozone nonattainment area to
be at the low end or lower than this range. Nonetheless, using the 4 to
8 cent per gallon estimate, the cost of the program to the area would
be significantly lower than the trigger for a significant regulatory
action.

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

    Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    EPA has determined that this final rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it increases the
level of environmental protection for all affected populations without
having any disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on any population, including any minority or low-
income population.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden.
Refiners are currently subject to the information collection
requirements for Federal reformulated gasoline and conventional
gasoline. Today's rule adds an additional ozone nonattainment area as a
Federal RFG covered area; the rule does not change the information
collection requirements already associated with Federal RFG. However,
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has previously approved the
information collection requirements contained in the existing
regulations (see 59 FR 7716, February 16, 1994), under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and has assigned
OMB control number

number 2060-0277 (EPA ICR No. 1951.21). A copy of the OMB approved
Information Collection Request (ICR) may be obtained from Susan Auby,
Collection Strategies Division; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(2822T); 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460 or by
calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure 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 purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that has not
more than 1,500 employees (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; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
    In promulgating the RFG and the related anti-dumping regulations
for conventional gasoline, the Agency analyzed the impact of the
regulations on small businesses. The Agency concluded that the
regulations may possibly have some economic effect on a substantial
number of small refiners, but that the regulations may not
significantly affect other small entities, such as gasoline blenders,
terminal operators, service stations and ethanol blenders. See 59 FR
7810-7811 (February 16, 1994). As stated in the preamble to the final
RFG/anti-dumping rule, exempting small refiners from the RFG
regulations would result in the failure of meeting CAA standards. 59 FR
7810. However, since most small refiners are located in the mountain
states or in California, which has its own RFG program, the vast
majority of small refiners are unaffected by the Federal RFG
requirements (although all refiners of conventional gasoline are
subject to the anti-dumping requirements). Moreover, all businesses,
large and small, maintain the option to produce conventional gasoline
to be sold in areas not obligated by the Act to receive RFG or those
areas which have not chosen to opt into the RFG program. A complete
analysis of the effect of the RFG/anti-dumping regulations on small
businesses is contained in the Regulatory Flexibility Analysis which
was prepared for the RFG and anti-dumping rulemaking, and can be found
in the docket for that rulemaking. The docket number is: EPA Air Docket
A-92-12.
    Today's action will affect only those refiners, importers or
blenders of gasoline that choose to produce or import RFG for sale in
the Illinois portion of the St. Louis, Illinois-Missouri ozone
nonattainment area, and gasoline distributors and retail stations in
those areas. As discussed above, EPA determined that, because of their
location, the vast majority of small refiners would be unaffected by
the RFG requirements. For the same reason, most small refiners will be
unaffected by today's action. Other small entities, such as gasoline
distributors and retail stations located in the area that will become a
covered area as a result of today's action, will be subject to the same
requirements as those small entities which are located in current RFG
covered areas. The Agency did not find the RFG regulations to
significantly affect these entities. Based on this, EPA certifies that
this final rule will not have a significant adverse 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. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
    EPA has determined that this rule does not contain a Federal
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private
sector in any one year. Thus, today's rule is not subject to the
requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. Although EPA does not
believe that UMRA imposes requirements for this rulemaking, EPA notes
that the environmental and economic impacts of the RFG program were
assessed in EPA's Regulatory Impact Analysis for the 1994 RFG rules.
    EPA has also determined that this rule contains no regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. The rule would only impose requirements on certain
refiners and other entities in the gasoline distribution system, and
not small governments. The requirements of the rule will be enforced by
the Federal

government at the national level. Thus, a small government agency plan
did not need to be developed under section 203 of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act.

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    This rule 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, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. The rule would only impose
requirements on certain refiners and other entities in the gasoline
distribution system, and not on States. The requirements of the rule
will be enforced by the Federal government at the national level. Thus,
Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule.

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

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' This direct final rule does
not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175.
Today's direct final rule will affect only those refiners, importers or
blenders of gasoline that choose to produce or import RFG for sale in
the East St. Louis ozone nonattainment area, and gasoline distributors
and retail stations in those areas. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does
not apply to this rule.

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

    Executive Order 13045 ``Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies
to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant''
as defined under EO 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or
safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a disproportionate
effect on children. If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the
Agency must evaluate the environmental health or safety effects of the
planned rule on children, and explain why the planned regulation is
preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably feasible
alternatives considered by the Agency.
    This final rule is not subject to the EO because it is not
economically significant as defined in EO 12866, and because the Agency
does not have reason to believe the environmental health or safety
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to
children.

I. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Effect Energy
Supply

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

J. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note),
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in our regulatory
activities unless it would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) developed or adopted by voluntary
consensus standards bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress,
through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available
and applicable voluntary consensus standards. This final rulemaking
does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA is not considering
the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

K. Statutory Authority

    The Statutory authority for the action finalized today is granted
to EPA by sections 211(c) and (k) and 301 of the Clean Air Act, as
amended; 42 U.S.C. 7545(c) and (k) and 7601.

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. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2). This rule will be effective April 20, 2007.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 80

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Fuel additives,
Gasoline, Motor vehicle pollution.

    Dated: April 18, 2007.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.

0
40 CFR part 80 is amended as follows:

PART 80--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 80 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7414, 7545, 7542, and 7601(a).

0
2. Section 80.70 is amended by adding paragraph (k)(2) to read as
follows:

Sec.  80.70  Covered areas.

* * * * *
    (k) * * *
    (2) The Illinois portion of the St. Louis, Illinois-Missouri ozone
nonattainment area is a covered area beginning on July 1, 2007. The
prohibitions of section 211(k)(5) of the Clean Air Act apply to all
persons other than retailers and wholesale purchaser-consumers in the
Illinois portion of the St. Louis, Illinois-Missouri ozone
nonattainment area beginning on June 1, 2007. The prohibitions of
section 211(k)(5) of the Clean Air Act apply to retailers and wholesale
purchaser-consumers in the Illinois portion of the St. Louis, Illinois-
Missouri ozone nonattainment area beginning July 1, 2007.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. E7-7777 Filed 4-23-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 13, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27593-27594]
[FR Doc No: 2018-12666]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL18-171-000]

Notice of Complaint: Kathryn E. Leonard v. Deepwater Wind Block
Island, LLC, Narragansett Electric Company, Inc., Rhode Island Public
Utilities Commission

    Take notice that on June 7, 2018, pursuant to section 206 of the
Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824e and Rule 206 of the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and
Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206, Kathryn E. Leonard (Complainant) filed a
formal complaint against Deepwater Wind Block Island, LLC (Deepwater
Wind), Narragansett Electric Company, Inc., and Rhode Island Public
Utilities Commission (jointly Respondents) alleging that, Rhode Island
Public Utility Commission on August 16, 2010, as directed by the Rhode
Island General Assembly, approved a 20-year Purchase Power Agreement
between Deepwater Wind and National Grid that appears to constitute a
violation of the FPA, all as more fully explained in the complaint.
    Complainant certifies that copies of the complaint were served on
the contacts for the Rhode Island Public Utility Commission as listed
on the Commission's list of Corporate Officials, as well as contacts
for National Grid and Deepwater Wind.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's
answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before
the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and
protests must be served on the Complainants.

    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
eLibrary link and is available for electronic review in the
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC there is an
eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s).
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
[email protected], or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on June 27, 2018.

    Dated: June 7, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-12666 Filed 6-12-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 117 (Tuesday, June 18, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28313-28314]
[FR Doc No: 2019-12855]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4432-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2019-0001]

Oregon; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of Oregon (FEMA-4432-DR), dated May 2, 2019, and
related determinations.

DATES: The declaration was issued May 2, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated May 2, 2019, the President issued a major disaster declaration
under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the State
of Oregon resulting from severe winter storms, flooding, landslides,
and mudslides during the period of February 23 to February 26, 2019,
is of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant a major disaster
declaration under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''). Therefore, I declare that such a major disaster exists in
the State of Oregon.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Public Assistance in the
designated areas and

Hazard Mitigation throughout the State. Consistent with the
requirement that Federal assistance be supplemental, any Federal
funds provided under the Stafford Act for Hazard Mitigation will be
limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs. Federal funds
provided under the Stafford Act for Public Assistance also will be
limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs, with the
exception of projects that meet the eligibility criteria for a
higher Federal cost-sharing percentage under the Public Assistance
Alternative Procedures Pilot Program for Debris Removal implemented
pursuant to section 428 of the Stafford Act.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Rosalyn L. Cole, of FEMA is
appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major
disaster.
    The following areas of the State of Oregon have been designated as
adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Coos, Curry, Douglas, Jefferson, and Lane Counties for Public
Assistance.
    All areas within the State of Oregon are eligible for assistance
under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Pete Gaynor,
Acting Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2019-12855 Filed 6-17-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 250 (Monday, December 31, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 76998]
[FR Doc No: 2012-31340]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 67

[Docket ID FEMA-2011-0002: Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1184]

Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations for Nobles County, MN,
and Incorporated Areas

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Proposed rule; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is withdrawing
its proposed rule concerning proposed flood elevation determinations
for Nobles County, Minnesota, and Incorporated Areas.

DATES: This withdrawal is effective on December 31, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-
1184, to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal
Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or
(email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering
Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 27, 2011, FEMA published a proposed
rulemaking at 76 FR 23528, proposing flood elevation determinations
along one or more flooding sources in Nobles County, Minnesota and
Incorporated Areas. Because FEMA has or will be issuing a Revised
Preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map, and if necessary a Flood
Insurance Study report, featuring updated flood hazard information, the
proposed rulemaking is being withdrawn. A Notice of Proposed Flood
Hazard Determinations will be published in the Federal Register and in
the affected community's local newspaper.

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 4104; 44 CFR 67.4.

James A. Walke,
Acting Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation, Department of
Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2012-31340 Filed 12-28-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 203 (Friday, October 21, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64054-64055]
[FR Doc No: 2022-22884]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2017-D-6528]

Refusal of Inspection by a Foreign Food Establishment or Foreign
Government; Guidance for Industry; Availability

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing the
availability of a final guidance for industry entitled ``Refusal of
Inspection by a Foreign Food Establishment or Foreign Government.'' The
guidance will provide information for foreign food establishments
subject to our inspection, as well as foreign governments, on when we
may consider that a foreign food establishment or a government of a
foreign country has refused to permit an inspection by us as provided
in the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act).

DATES: The announcement of the guidance is published in the Federal
Register on October 21, 2022.

ADDRESSES: You may submit either electronic or written comments on
Agency guidances at any time as follows:

Electronic Submissions

    Submit electronic comments in the following way:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Comments submitted
electronically, including attachments, to https://www.regulations.gov
will be posted to the docket unchanged. Because your comment will be
made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your comment
does not include any confidential information that you or a third party
may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone
else's Social Security number, or confidential business information,
such as a manufacturing process. Please note that if you include your
name, contact information, or other information that identifies you in
the body of your comments, that information will be posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
     If you want to submit a comment with confidential
information that you do not wish to be made available to the public,
submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner
detailed (see ``Written/Paper Submissions'' and ``Instructions'').

Written/Paper Submissions

    Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
     Mail/Hand delivery/Courier (for written/paper
submissions): Dockets

Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers
Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
     For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets
Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any
attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified,
as confidential, if submitted as detailed in ``Instructions.''
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket No.
FDA-2017-D-6528 for ``Refusal of Inspection by a Foreign Food
Establishment or Foreign Government.'' Received comments will be placed
in the docket and, except for those submitted as ``Confidential
Submissions,'' publicly viewable at https://www.regulations.gov or at
the Dockets Management Staff between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday.
     Confidential Submissions--To submit a comment with
confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly
available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You
should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information
you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states
``THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.'' The Agency will
review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in
its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the
claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be
available for public viewing and posted on https://www.regulations.gov.
Submit both copies to the Dockets Management Staff. If you do not wish
your name and contact information to be made publicly available, you
can provide this information on the cover sheet and not in the body of
your comments and you must identify this information as
``confidential.'' Any information marked as ``confidential'' will not
be disclosed except in accordance with 21 CFR 10.20 and other
applicable disclosure law. For more information about FDA's posting of
comments to public dockets, see 80 FR 56469, September 18, 2015, or
access the information at: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2015-09-18/pdf/2015-23389.pdf.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
the electronic and written/paper comments received, go to https://www.regulations.gov and insert the docket number, found in brackets in
the heading of this document, into the ``Search'' box and follow the
prompts and/or go to the Dockets Management Staff, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
    You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR
10.115(g)(5)).
    Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance to the
Compliance Policy Staff/Office of Compliance, Center for Food Safety
and Applied Nutrition (HFS-605), Food and Drug Administration, 5001
Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740. Send two self-addressed adhesive
labels to assist that office in processing your request. See the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for electronic access to the
guidance.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yinqing Ma, Center for Food Safety and
Applied Nutrition (HFS-605), Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus
Dr., College Park, MD 20740,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    We are announcing the availability of a guidance for industry
entitled ``Refusal of Inspection by a Foreign Food Establishment or
Foreign Government.'' We are issuing this guidance consistent with our
good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance
represents the current thinking of FDA on this topic. It does not
establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the
public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the
requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
    In the Federal Register of December 12, 2017 (82 FR 58410), we made
available a draft guidance for industry entitled ``Refusal of
Inspection by a Foreign Food Establishment or Foreign Government'' and
gave interested parties an opportunity to submit comments by February
26, 2018, for us to consider before beginning work on the final version
of the guidance. We received several comments on the draft guidance and
have modified the final guidance where appropriate. Changes to the
guidance include: provided additional information on FDA's inspection
authority; clarified that the investigator will inform the owner,
operator, or agent in charge of the establishment when they consider
their action to be a refusal and will explain the consequences of the
refusal; and clarified that the Agency will make the final decision
regarding refusal and listing on Import Alert 99-32. In addition, we
made editorial changes to improve clarity. The guidance announced in
this notice finalizes the draft guidance dated December 2017.

II. Electronic Access

    Persons with access to the internet may obtain the guidance at
either https://www.fda.gov/FoodGuidances or https://www.regulations.gov. Use the FDA website listed in the previous
sentence to find the most current version of the guidance.

    Dated: October 17, 2022.
Lauren K. Roth,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-22884 Filed 10-20-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P