[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 5 (Monday, January 9, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1282-1283]
[FR Doc No: 2023-00176]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4677-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2022-0001]

South Carolina; 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 South Carolina (FEMA-4677-DR), dated November
21, 2022, and related determinations.

DATES: The declaration was issued November 21, 2022.

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 November 21, 2022, 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 South Carolina resulting from Hurricane Ian during the period of
September 25 to October 4, 2022, 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 South Carolina.
    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 Individual Assistance and 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 Public Assistance, Hazard Mitigation, and Other Needs Assistance
under section 408 will be limited to 75 percent of the total
eligible costs.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The time period prescribed for the implementation of section
310(a), Priority to Certain Applications for Public Facility and Public
Housing Assistance, 42 U.S.C. 5153, shall be for a period not to exceed
six months after the date of this declaration.
    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, Kevin A. Wallace, Sr., of FEMA is
appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major
disaster.
    The following areas of the State of South Carolina have been
designated as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Charleston, Georgetown, and Horry Counties for Individual
Assistance.
    Berkeley, Charleston, Clarendon, Georgetown, Horry, Jasper, and
Williamsburg Counties for Public Assistance.
    All areas within the State of South Carolina 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.

Deanne Criswell,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2023-00176 Filed 1-6-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 19 (Tuesday, January 31, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8887-8888]
[FR Doc No: 2017-02000]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-79874; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2016-141]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Withdrawal of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend Rule 4702 To
Adopt a New Retail Post-Only Order

January 25, 2017.
    On October 13, 2016, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''),
pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a proposed rule change to
amend Exchange Rule 4702 to adopt a new Retail Post-Only Order. The
proposed rule change was published for comment in the Federal Register
on

November 1, 2016.\3\ On December 14, 2016, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)
of the Act,\4\ the Commission designated a longer period within which
to approve the proposed rule change, disapprove the proposed rule
change, or institute proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the
proposed rule change.\5\ The Commission received one comment letter on
the proposed rule change.\6\ On January 20, 2017, the Exchange withdrew
the proposed rule change (SR-NASDAQ-2016-141).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79163 (October 26,
2016), 81 FR 75862.
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79554, 81 FR 92927
(December 20, 2016). The Commission designated January 30, 2017, as
the date by which it shall approve, disapprove, or institute
proceedings to determine whether to disapprove the proposed rule
change.
    \6\ See Letter from Joseph Saluzzi and Sal Arnuk, Partners,
Themis Trading LLC, to Brent J. Fields, Secretary, Commission, dated
November 7, 2016.

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

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

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-02000 Filed 1-30-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: September 1, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 169)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 53574-53577]
[DOCID:fr01se10-4]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2010-0776]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Fireworks Displays, Potomac River, National Harbor,
MD

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary interim rule with request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone upon specified
waters of the Potomac River. This action is necessary to provide for
the safety of life on navigable waters during five fireworks displays
launched from a discharge barge located at National Harbor, in Prince
Georges County, Maryland. This safety zone is intended to protect the
maritime public in a portion of the Potomac River.

DATES: This rule is effective from September 1, 2010 through November
19, 2010. Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on
or before October 1, 2010.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2010-0776 using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (4) Hand Delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary interim rule, call or e-mail Ronald L. Houck, Sector
Baltimore Waterways Management Division, Coast Guard; telephone 410-
576-2674, e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on
viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted,
without change, to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided.
    Submitting Comments:
    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2010-0776), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material
online (via http://www.regulations.gov) or by fax, mail or hand
delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a
comment online via http://www.regulations.gov, it will be considered
received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment.
If you fax, hand delivery, or mail your comment, it will be considered
as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the
Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and
a mailing address, an e-mail address, or a telephone number in the body
of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions
regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
click on the ``submit a comment'' box, which will then become
highlighted in blue. In the ``Document Type'' drop down menu select
``Proposed Rule'' and insert ``USCG-2010-0776'' in the ``Keyword'' box.
Click ``Search'' then click on the balloon shape in the ``Actions''
column. If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit
them in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable
for copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would
like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and
material received during the comment period and may change this rule
based on your comments.
    Viewing Comments and Documents:
    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
click on the ``read comments'' box, which will then become highlighted
in blue. In the ``Keyword'' box insert ``USCG-2010-0776'' and click
``Search.'' Click the ``Open Docket Folder'' in the ``Actions'' column.
You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on
the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West Building,
1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. We have an
agreement with the Department of Transportation to use the Docket
Management Facility.
    Privacy Act:
    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on

behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review
a Privacy Act notice regarding our public dockets in the January 17,
2008 issue of the Federal Register (73 FR 3316).
    Public Meeting:
    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for one using one of the four methods specified under
ADDRESSES. Please explain why you believe a public meeting would be
beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will
hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal
Register.

Regulatory Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary interim rule without
prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under
section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C.
553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without
prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause
finds that those procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or
contrary to the public interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast
Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is
contrary to public interest to delay the effective date of this rule.
Delaying the effective date by first publishing an NPRM would be
contrary to the safety zone's intended objectives since immediate
action is necessary to protect persons and vessels against the hazards
associated with a fireworks display on navigable waters. Such hazards
include premature detonations, dangerous projectiles and falling or
burning debris.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Due to the need for immediate
action, the restriction of vessel traffic is necessary to protect life,
property and the environment. Therefore, a 30-day notice is
impracticable. Delaying the effective date would be contrary to the
safety zone's intended objectives of protecting persons and vessels
involved in the event, and enhancing public and maritime safety.

Basis and Purpose

    Fireworks displays are frequently held from locations on or near
the navigable waters of the United States. The potential hazards
associated with fireworks displays are a safety concern during such
events. The purpose of this rule is to promote public and maritime
safety during five fireworks displays, and to protect mariners
transiting the area from the potential hazards associated with a
fireworks display, such as the accidental discharge of fireworks,
dangerous projectiles, and falling hot embers or other debris. This
rule is needed to ensure safety on the waterway during the scheduled
events.

Discussion of Rule

    Pyrotecnico, of New Castle, Pennsylvania, will conduct five
separate fireworks displays launched from a barge located in the
Potomac River at National Harbor, Maryland scheduled on September 1,
2010 at 9:30 p.m., September 21, 2010 at 9:30 p.m., October 1, 2010 at
9:30 p.m., October 9, 2010 at 9:30 p.m. and November 18, 2010 at 6:45
p.m., and if necessary due to inclement weather, on November 19, 2010
at 6:45 p.m.
    The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on certain
waters of the Potomac River, within an area bounded by a line drawn
from the following points: Latitude 38[deg]47'18'' N, longitude
077[deg]01'01'' W; thence to latitude 38[deg]47'11'' N, longitude
077[deg]01'26'' W; thence to latitude 38[deg]47'25'' N, longitude
077[deg]01'33'' W; thence to latitude 38[deg]47'32'' N, longitude
077[deg]01'08'' W; thence to the point of origin, located at National
Harbor, Maryland (NAD 1983). The temporary safety zone will be enforced
from 6 p.m. through 11 p.m. on September 1, 2010, September 21, 2010,
October 1, 2010, October 9, 2010 and November 18, 2010, and if
necessary due to inclement weather, from 6 p.m. through 11 p.m. on
November 19, 2010. The effect of this temporary safety zone will be to
restrict navigation in the regulated area during the fireworks
displays. No person or vessel may enter or remain in the safety zone.
Vessels will be allowed to transit the waters of the Potomac River
outside the safety zone. Notification of the temporary safety zone will
be provided to the public via marine information broadcasts.

Regulatory Analyses

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

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order. Although this safety zone will restrict
some vessel traffic, there is little vessel traffic associated with
commercial fishing in the area, and recreational boating in the area
can transit waters outside the safety zone. In addition, the effect of
this rule will not be significant because the safety zone is of limited
duration and limited size. For the above reasons, the Coast Guard does
not anticipate any significant economic impact.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of which
may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to
operate, transit, or anchor in a portion of the Potomac River, located
at National Harbor, MD, from 6 p.m. through 11 p.m. on September 1,
2010, September 21, 2010, October 1, 2010, October 9, 2010 and November
18, 2010, and if necessary due to inclement weather, from 6 p.m.
through 11 p.m. on November 19, 2010. This safety zone will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
for the following reasons. The safety zone is of limited size and
duration. In addition, before the effective periods, the Coast Guard
will issue maritime advisories widely available to users of the
waterway to allow mariners to make alternative plans for transiting the
affected area.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its
effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture

Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business
Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions
annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If
you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-
888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate
against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any
policy or action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

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

Federalism

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

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

Taking of Private Property

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

Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Energy Effects

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

Technical Standards

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

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of
the Instruction. This rule involves establishing a temporary safety
zone.
    An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306,
3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Pub.
L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T05-0776 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T05-0776  Safety Zone; Fireworks Displays, Potomac River,
National Harbor, MD.

    (a) Regulated area. The following area is a safety zone: All waters
in the Potomac River, within an area bounded by a line drawn from the
following points: Latitude 38[deg]47'18'' N, longitude 077[deg]01'01''
W; thence to latitude 38[deg]47'11'' N, longitude 077[deg]01'26'' W;
thence to latitude 38[deg]47'25'' N, longitude 077[deg]01'33'' W;
thence to latitude 38[deg]47'32'' N, longitude 077[deg]01'08'' W;
thence to the point of origin, located at National Harbor, Maryland
(NAD 1983).
    (b) Regulations. The general safety zone regulations found in 33
CFR 165.23 apply to the safety zone created by this temporary section,
Sec.  165.T05-0776.
    (1) All vessels and persons are prohibited from entering this zone,
except as authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port Baltimore.
    (2) Persons or vessels requiring entry into or passage within the
zone must request authorization from the Captain of the Port or his
designated representative by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or on VHF-FM
marine band radio channel 16.
    (3) All Coast Guard assets enforcing this safety zone can be
contacted on

VHF-FM marine band radio channels 13 and 16.
    (4) The operator of any vessel within or in the immediate vicinity
of this safety zone shall:
    (i) Stop the vessel immediately upon being directed to do so by any
commissioned, warrant or petty officer on board a vessel displaying a
Coast Guard Ensign, and
    (ii) Proceed as directed by any commissioned, warrant or petty
officer on board a vessel displaying a Coast Guard Ensign.
    (c) Definitions. Captain of the Port Baltimore means the Commander,
Coast Guard Sector Baltimore or any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant
or petty officer who has been authorized by the Captain of the Port to
act on his behalf.
    Designated representative means any Coast Guard commissioned,
warrant, or petty officer who has been authorized by the Captain of the
Port Baltimore to assist in enforcing the safety zone described in
paragraph (a) of this section.
    (d) Enforcement. The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted by Federal,
State and local agencies in the patrol and enforcement of the zone.
    (e) Enforcement periods. This section will be enforced from 6 p.m.
through 11 p.m. on September 1, 2010, September 21, 2010, October 1,
2010, October 9, 2010 and November 18, 2010, and if necessary due to
inclement weather, from 6 p.m. through 11 p.m. on November 19, 2010.

    Dated: August 16, 2010.
Mark P. O'Malley,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Baltimore.
[FR Doc. 2010-21781 Filed 8-31-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: June 21, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 119)]
[Notices]
[Page 34320-34321]
[DOCID:fr21jn07-69]

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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

[Docket No. OSHA-2006-0030]

National Technical Systems, Inc.; Renewal of Recognition

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration's final decision granting the renewal of recognition of
National Technical Systems, Inc., (NTS) as a Nationally Recognized
Testing Laboratory under 29 CFR 1910.7.

DATES: The renewal of recognition becomes effective on June 21, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: MaryAnn Garrahan, Director, Office of
Technical Programs and Coordination Activities, NRTL Program,
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of
Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room N-3655, Washington, DC 20210,
or phone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Notice of Final Decision

    The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) hereby
gives notice of the renewal of recognition of National Technical
Systems, Inc., (NTS) as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory
(NRTL). This renewal covers NTS's existing scope of recognition, which
may be found in the following informational Web page: http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/nts.html
.

    OSHA recognition of an NRTL signifies that the organization has met
the legal requirements in Sec.  1910.7 of Title 29, Code of Federal
Regulations (29 CFR 1910.7). Recognition is an acknowledgment that the
organization can perform independent safety testing and certification
of the specific products covered within its scope of recognition and is
not a delegation or grant of government authority. As a result of
recognition, employers may use products properly approved by the NRTL
to meet OSHA standards that require testing and certification.
    The Agency processes applications by an NRTL for initial
recognition or for expansion or renewal of this recognition following
requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires
that the Agency publish two notices in the Federal Register in
processing an application. In the first notice, OSHA announces the
application and provides its preliminary finding and, in the second
notice, the Agency provides its final decision on the application.
These notices set forth the NRTL's scope of recognition or
modifications of that scope. We maintain an informational Web page for
each NRTL that details its scope of recognition. These pages can be
accessed from our Web site at http://www.osha.gov/dts/otpca/nrtl/index.html
.

    National Technical Systems, Inc., (NTS) initially received OSHA
recognition as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory on December
10, 1998 (63 FR 68306) for a five-year period ending on December 10,
2003. Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7 stipulates that the period of
recognition of an NRTL is five years and that an NRTL may renew its
recognition by applying not less than nine months, nor more than one
year, before the expiration date of its current recognition. NRTLs
submitting requests within this allotted time period retain their
recognition during OSHA's renewal process. NTS submitted a request,
dated February 13, 2003 (see Exhibit 7), to renew its recognition. This
request fell within the allotted time period, and NTS retained its
recognition pending OSHA's final decision in this renewal process. In
connection with the renewal, an NRTL Program assessor performed an on-
site review the NRTL's site. Based upon this review, the assessor
recommended the renewal of NTS's recognition in a memo dated July 22,
2005 (see Exhibit 7-1).
    The preliminary notice announcing the renewal application was
published in the Federal Register on August 17, 2006 (71 FR 47534).
Comments were requested by September 1, but no comments were received
in response to this notice.
    The most recent application processed by OSHA specifically related
to the recognition of NTS granted its initial recognition, and the
final notice for this recognition was published as noted above.
    You may obtain or review copies of all public documents pertaining
to the NTS application by contacting the Docket Office, Occupational
Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, 200
Constitution Avenue, NW., Room N2625, Washington, DC, 20210. Docket No.
OSHA-2006-0030 (formerly, NRTL1-98) contains all materials in the
record concerning the NTS application.
    The current address of the NTS facility (site) already recognized
by OSHA and included as part of the renewal is:
    National Technical Systems, Inc., 1146 Massachusetts Avenue,
Boxborough, MA 01719.

Final Decision and Order

    NRTL Program staff has examined the application, the assessor's
report, and other pertinent information. Based upon this examination
and the assessor's recommendation, OSHA finds that NTS has met the
requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for renewal of its recognition, subject
to the limitations and conditions listed below. Pursuant to the
authority in 29 CFR 1910.7, OSHA hereby renews the recognition of NTS,
subject to these limitations and conditions.

Limitations

1. Test Standards and Site
    OSHA limits the renewal of the NTS recognition to the one site
listed above and to testing and certification of products for
demonstration of conformance to the test standards listed below. OSHA
has determined that each of these standards meets the requirements for
an appropriate test standard, within the meaning of 29 CFR 1910.7(c).
    UL 484--Room Air Conditioners.
    UL 489--Molded-Case Circuit Breakers, Molded-Case Switches, and
Circuit-Breaker Enclosures.
    UL 499--Electric Heating Appliances.
    UL 544--Medical and Dental Equipment.
    UL 1012--Power Units Other Than Class 2.
    UL 1778--Uninterruptible Power Systems.
    UL 1863--Communications-Circuit Accessories.
    UL 1995--Heating and Cooling Equipment.
    UL 60601-1--Medical Electrical Equipment, Part 1: General
Requirements for Safety.
    UL 60950--Information Technology Equipment.
    UL 61010A-1--Electrical Equipment For Laboratory Use; Part 1:
General Requirements.
    UL 61010B-1--Electrical Measuring and Test Equipment; Part 1:
General Requirements.
    The designations and titles of the above test standards were
current at the time of the preparation of the preliminary notice.
    OSHA's recognition of NTS, or any NRTL, for a particular test
standard is limited to equipment or materials (i.e., products) for
which OSHA standards require third-party testing and certification
before use in the

workplace. Consequently, if a test standard also covers any product(s)
for which OSHA does not require such testing and certification, an
NRTL's scope of recognition does not include that product(s).
    Many UL test standards also are approved as American National
Standards by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). However,
for convenience, we use the designation of the standards developing
organization for the standard as opposed to the ANSI designation. Under
our procedures, any NRTL recognized for an ANSI-approved test standard
may use either the latest proprietary version of the test standard or
the latest ANSI version of that standard. You may contact ANSI to find
out whether or not a test standard is currently ANSI-approved.
2. Supplemental Programs
    The renewal is also limited to continued use by NTS of the
following supplemental programs, all of which are currently in its
scope.
    Program 4: Acceptance of witnessed testing data.
    Program 8: Acceptance of product evaluations from organizations
that function as part of the International Electrical Commission
Certification Body (IEC-CB) Scheme.
    Program 9: Acceptance of services other than testing or evaluation
performed by subcontractors or agents.
    In developing these programs, OSHA responded to industry requests
and allowed certain of their ongoing practices to continue but in a
manner controlled by OSHA criteria. In this sense, they are special
conditions that the Agency places on an NRTL's recognition. OSHA does
not consider these programs in determining whether an NRTL meets the
requirements for recognition under 29 CFR 1910.7. However, these
programs help to define the scope of that recognition.

Conditions

    NTS must also abide by the following conditions of the recognition,
in addition to those already required by 29 CFR 1910.7:
    OSHA must be allowed access to NTS's facility and records for
purposes of ascertaining continuing compliance with the terms of its
recognition and to investigate as OSHA deems necessary;
    If NTS has reason to doubt the efficacy of any test standard it is
using under this program, it must promptly inform the test standard
developing organization of this fact and provide that organization with
appropriate relevant information upon which its concerns are based;
    NTS must not engage in or permit others to engage in any
misrepresentation of the scope or conditions of its recognition. As
part of this condition, NTS agrees that it will allow no representation
that it is either a recognized or an accredited Nationally Recognized
Testing Laboratory (NRTL) without clearly indicating the specific
equipment or material to which this recognition is tied, or that its
recognition is limited to certain products;
    NTS must inform OSHA as soon as possible, in writing, of any change
of ownership, facilities, or key personnel, and of any major changes in
its operations as an NRTL, including details;
    NTS will meet all the terms of its recognition and will always
comply with all OSHA policies pertaining to this recognition; and
    NTS will continue to meet the requirements for recognition in all
areas where it has been recognized.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 4th day of June, 2007.
Edwin G. Foulke, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health.
[FR Doc. E7-12024 Filed 6-20-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-26-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 198 (Friday, October 12, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62290-62292]
[FR Doc No: 2012-25082]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67994; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2012-107]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To
Modify Fees Assessed Under Rule 7003(a)

October 5, 2012.
    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 September 27, 2012, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') a 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

    NASDAQ proposes to modify fees assessed under Rule 7003(a) relating
to the Central Registration Depository (``CRD system''), which are
collected by FINRA. NASDAQ is proposing that the implementation date of
the proposed

rule change will be January 2, 2013. The text of the proposed rule
change is available at http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com, at NASDAQ's
principal office, 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, NASDAQ 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 those statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item III [sic] below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    NASDAQ is amending its fees assessed under Rule 7003(a) to reflect
a recent fee change made by FINRA,\3\ relating to the CRD system.\4\
The fees assessed under Rule 7003(a) are collected and retained by
FINRA via the CRD system for the registration of associated persons of
NASDAQ members that are not also FINRA members. NASDAQ originally
adopted the fees under Rule 7003(a) to mirror the fees assessed by
FINRA on its members for use of the CRD system.\5\ FINRA recently
amended the fees assessed for use of the CRD system, which will become
effective January 2, 2013.\6\ The CRD system fees are use-based and
there is no distinction in the cost incurred by FINRA if the user is a
FINRA member or a member of an exchange that is not a FINRA member.
Accordingly, NASDAQ is proposing to amend the fees under Rule 7003(a)
to mirror those assessed by FINRA, which will be implemented
concurrently with the amended FINRA fees on January 2, 2013.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67247 (June 25,
2012), 77 FR 38866 (June 29, 2012) (SR-FINRA-2012-030).
    \4\ The CRD system is the central licensing and registration
system for the U.S. securities industry. The CRD system enables
individuals and firms seeking registration with multiple states and
self-regulatory organizations to do so by submitting a single form,
fingerprint card and a combined payment of fees to FINRA. Through
the CRD system, FINRA maintains the qualification, employment and
disciplinary histories of registered associated persons of broker-
dealers.
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 54264 (August 2,
2006), 71 FR 45590 (August 9, 2006) (SR-NASDAQ-2006-015). See also,
Section 4(b)(3) of Schedule A to the FINRA By-Laws.
    \6\ Supra note 3.
    \7\ NASDAQ notes that it is not adopting all of the changes made
in the FINRA filing. Certain fees and requirements are specific to
FINRA and NASDAQ elected to not adopt them because either such a fee
did not apply to NASDAQ-only members or such fees did not directly
cover the costs associated with the use of the CRD system. For
example, under FINRA Section 4(h) of Schedule A FINRA assesses a fee
of $10 per day, up to $300 for each day that a new disclosure event
or a change in the status of a previously reported disclosure event
is not timely filed on an initial or amended Form U5 or an amended
Form U4. This fee provides a financial incentive to a FINRA member
to file its Forms U4 and U5 timely. NASDAQ elected to not adopt such
a fee applicable to its members that are not also FINRA members.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to increasing the existing CRD system fees, FINRA
adopted a new fee for the additional processing of each initial or
amended Form BD that includes the initial reporting, amendment, or
certification of one or more disclosure events or proceedings.\8\
Member firms use the Form BD to, among other things, report disclosure
matters in which they or a control affiliate have been involved. Prior
to the adoption of the new fee, FINRA did not have a fee designed to
cover the costs associated with the review of Form BD notwithstanding
the review is similar to that performed of member firms' Forms U4 and
U5. Such reviews include confirming that the matter is properly
reported; reviewing any documentation submitted and determining whether
additional documentation is required; conducting any necessary
independent research; and, depending on the matter reported, analyzing
whether the event or proceeding subjects the individual or member to a
statutory disqualification pursuant to Section 3(a)(39) of the Act.\9\
FINRA adopted a $110 fee for the review of a Form BD, which mirrors the
increased fee adopted for the review of Forms U4 and U5. As such,
NASDAQ is adopting the identical fee for FINRA's review of a Form BD
submitted by NASDAQ members that are not members of FINRA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Id.
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78c(a)(39).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NASDAQ is proposing that the implementation date of the proposed
rule change will be January 2, 2013. Specifically, the proposed
initial/transfer registration, disclosure filing, and fingerprint fees
would become effective for filings or fingerprints submitted on or
after January 2, 2013. Lastly, the proposed system processing fee would
become effective for the 2013 Renewal Program.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ As part of FINRA's 2013 Renewal Program, Preliminary
Renewal Statements reflecting the proposed $45 system processing fee
will be made available to members in the fourth quarter of 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    NASDAQ believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\11\ in general, and with
Section 6(b)(4) of the Act \12\ and Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\13\ in
particular, in that it provides for the equitable allocation of
reasonable dues, fees and other charges among members and issuers and
other persons using any facility or system which the Exchange operates
or controls, and it does not unfairly discriminate between customers,
issuers, brokers or dealers. All similarly situated members are subject
to the same fee structure, and every member firm must use the CRD
system for registration and disclosure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The change is reasonable because the proposed fees are identical to
those adopted by FINRA for use of the CRD system for disclosure and the
registration of associated persons of FINRA members. As FINRA noted in
amending its fees, it believed the fees are reasonable based on the
increased costs associated with operating and maintaining the CRD
system, and listed a number of enhancements made to the CRD system
since the last fee increase, including: (1) Incorporation of various
uniform registration form changes; (2) electronic fingerprint
processing; (3) Web EFTTM, which allows subscribing firms to
submit batch filings to the CRD system; (4) increases in the number and
types of reports available through the CRD system; and (5) significant
changes to BrokerCheck, including making BrokerCheck easier to use and
expanding the amount of information made available through the system.
These increased costs are similarly borne by FINRA when a member of
NASDAQ that is not a member of FINRA uses the CRD system. Accordingly,
the fees collected for such use should likewise increase in lockstep
with the fees assessed FINRA members, as is proposed by NASDAQ.
    The proposed change, like FINRA's proposal, is consistent with an
equitable allocation of fees because the fees will apply equally to all
individuals and members required to report information to the CRD
system. Thus, those members that register more individuals or submit
more filings through the CRD system will generally pay more in fees
than those members that use the CRD system to a lesser extent.

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

    NASDAQ does not believe that the proposed rule change will result
in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,\14\ NASDAQ has
designated this proposal as establishing or changing a due, fee, or
other charge imposed by the self-regulatory organization on any person,
whether or not the person is a member of the self-regulatory
organization, which renders the proposed rule change effective upon
filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2012-107 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2012-107. 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 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 offices of NASDAQ. 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-NASDAQ-2012-107, and should be submitted on or before
November 2, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-25082 Filed 10-11-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 62 (Tuesday, March 31, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17875-17876]
[FR Doc No: 2020-06634]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2016-0094; FRL-10007-56-OMS]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; Importation of On-Highway Vehicles and
Nonroad Engines, Vehicles, and Equipment (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), Importation of On-highway
Vehicles and Motorcycles and Nonroad Engines, Vehicles, and Equipment
(EPA ICR Number 2583.02, OMB Control Number 2060-0717) to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with
the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the
current ICR, which is approved through July 31, 2020. Public comments
were previously requested via the Federal Register on November 18, 2019
during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30
days for public comments. 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.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before April 30, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2016-0094 to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our preferred
method), by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to: EPA Docket
Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for
EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Holly Pugliese, Compliance Division,
Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Environmental Protection
Agency, 2000 Traverwood, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 48105; telephone number:
734-214-4288; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents, which explain in
detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available
in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: The Clean Air Act requires that on-highway vehicles and
motorcycles, and nonroad vehicles, engines and equipment imported into
the U.S. either comply with applicable emission requirements or qualify
for an applicable exemption or exclusion. The Compliance Division (CD)
in the EPA's Office of Air and Radiation maintains and makes available
instruments to importers to help facilitate importation of products at
U.S. Borders. EPA Form 3520-1 is used by importers of on-highway
vehicles and motorcycles, and EPA Form 3520-21 is used by importers of
nonroad vehicles, engines and equipment.
    For most imports, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
regulations require that EPA Declaration Forms 3520-1 and 3520-21 be
filed with CBP at the time of entry. EPA makes both forms available on
our website in fillable PDF format (http://www.epa.gov/importing-vehicles-and-engines/publications-and-forms-importing-vehicles-and-engines). While EPA does not require that the forms be submitted
directly to EPA, the forms are primarily used by CBP to facilitate the
importation process at U.S. borders.
    In 2016, CBP deployed the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE).
ACE has become the primary system through which the trade community and
other importers report imports and exports. Through ACE as the single
point of submission, manual processes have been streamlined and
automated, and paper submissions (e.g. fillable PDFs) have been
significantly reduced. During the development of ACE, EPA worked with
CBP to incorporate the information detailed on both EPA Declaration
Forms 3520-1 and 3520-21 into ACE which effectively eliminates the
forms as unique individual documents that are to be filled in and filed
with CPB. Rather, importers will log into ACE and check boxes that
correspond to information elements currently found on the forms. Filers
using the ACE interface will also receive transaction information that
will be kept by the filer. However, EPA will continue to maintain the
forms on our website in fillable PDF format. Although importers are
expected to use the ACE interface to submit information, the PDF
versions of the form can also be submitted directly into ACE by
importers.
    EPA also makes available upon request EPA Form 3520-8 for on-
highway vehicles. This form is used by independent commercial importers
(ICIs) to request final admission of nonconforming vehicles.
    Form Numbers: 3520-1, 3520-21, 3520-8.
    Frequency of response: Once per entry. (One form per shipment may
be used.)
    Respondents/affected entities: Individual importers, or companies
who import and/or manufacture on-highway vehicles and motorcycles and
nonroad engines, vehicles, and equipment.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Required for any importer to
legally import on-highway vehicles and motorcycles and nonroad engines,
vehicles, and equipment into the U.S.
    Estimated number of respondents: 14,810.

    Total estimated burden: 81,985 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $4,244,699 (per year), includes $0 annualized
capital or operation and maintenance costs.
    Changes in Estimates: The increase in burden hours results from an
increase in the estimated number of forms being filed. With the
deployment of the ACE system, we are now able to have a much more
accurate count of the number of forms that are being filed. There is a
decrease in the burden costs because the only O&M costs associated with
this ICR are incurred by ICIs during the required certification
process, which is covered by 2060-0104. Therefore, with the renewal of
this ICR, we are zeroing out the capital and O&M costs in this ICR. The
burden totals have been updated accordingly.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2020-06634 Filed 3-30-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: National Emission Standards for Magnetic Tape Manufacturing Operations ( Tier 3; SAN 4669; RIN 2060 AK23) ACTION MEMORANDUM FROM: William L. Wehrum Acting Assistant Administrator ( 6101)

THRU: OEX ( 1105A)

TO: Stephen L. Johnson The Administrator ( 1101A)

DEADLINE The court ordered deadline for the final action for the magnetic tape manufacturing operations source category is March 2006.

OVERVIEW Attached for your approval is a proposed action ( 1) announcing a decision to take no further action at this time to revise the national emission standards for magnetic tape manufacturing operations ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart EE) and ( 2) requesting public comments on the residual risk assessment and technology review for the standards. We developed the proposed action pursuant to the requirements of section 112 of the Clean Air Act ( CAA). Section 112( d) of the CAA requires us to establish national emission standards based on the maximum achievable control technology ( MACT) for major and area sources that emit hazardous air pollutants ( HAP) exceeding specific emission thresholds. Section 112( d)( 6) of the CAA requires us to review the standards every 8 years for changes in technology or emission control practices. The residual risk provisions in section 112( f) of the CAA require us to determine whether the MACT standards protect public health with an ample margin of safety and reasonably prevent any adverse environmental effects.

The primary HAP emitted from magnetic tape manufacturing operations are methyl ethyl ketone and toluene, which are solvents used in the magnetic tape coating operation and cleaning of equipment. Some particulate air toxics emissions ( e. g., cobalt) can occur from the transfer of magnetic particles to the coating mix. We conducted a detailed risk assessment for the six magnetic tape manufacturing facilities currently operating in the United States. The estimated maximum lifetime individual cancer risk associated with the facility with the highest cancer risk 2 was 1 in 100 million, or 0.01 excess cancer case in a population of 1 million. Since our assessment shows that the maximum lifetime excess cancer risk is significantly less than 1 in amillion and since we have evaluated the potential for adverse noncancer human health effects and ecological risks and found them to be insignificant for the source category, we conclude that no further emissions reductions should be required under section 112( f).

As part of the technology review required under section 112( d)( 6) of the CAA, we reviewed available information about the industry, talked with industry representatives, and contacted several facilities in the industry to investigate available emission control technologies and the potential for additional emissions reductions. As noted above, we did not identify any additional control technologies beyond those that are already in widespread use within the source category ( e. g., carbon adsorbers, condensers). The only developments identified involve improvements in the performance of existing technologies or increased frequency of inspections and testing, which would achieve only small incremental emissions reductions. The only major technical advances we discovered were the development of two new technologies ( optical recording media and solid state recording ( SSR) media), which may eventually supplant magnetic tape. However, optical recording media and SSR media are not considered magnetic tape and would not be covered under the magnetic tape manufacturing national emission standards. Because the existing national emission standards continue to represent the best controls that can be implemented nationally, we conclude that no further revisions to the national emission standards are needed under section 112( d)( 6) of the CAA.

IMPACTS The proposed action will not have an economic impact on any of the magnetic tape manufacturing operations because we are proposing to take no further action to revise the national emission standards for the industry. The risk impacts are based on our analyses of emissions from the surface coatings used in the manufacture of magnetic tape. Emissions estimates are based on data from the 1999 National Emissions Inventory, 2000 Toxics Release Inventory, State offices, and the facilities involved. The methodology for the multipathway human health and ecological risk assessments follows the framework established in the EPA " Residual Risk Report to Congress" ( 1999) and " Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment" ( 1998).

STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT We involved stakeholders throughout the development of the proposed action. The list of magnetic tape manufacturing facilities was compiled based on inventory information gathered from a number of manufacturing facilities and State environmental program offices ( e. g., whether these facilities were still operating and manufacturing magnetic tape). We continued 3 our contacts with the industry in gathering information for the residual risk assessment and technology review.

INTERNAL REVIEW The proposed action was developed under Tier 3 and was reviewed by the work group, which consists of the Office of General Counsel; Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance; and Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation. We have addressed all issues raised during their reviews.

PEER REVIEW There were no influential or highly influential products supporting this action as defined by the Agency's Peer Review Handbook.

PLAIN LANGUAGE The elements of plain language have been addressed in the proposed action.

OMB TRANSACTION The rulemaking action was submitted to OMB for review under Executive Order 12866. OMB cleared the rulemaking action on September 27, 2005. Discussions with OMB focused on whether EPA could use the residual risk assessment to justify removing all or a portion of this source category from the list of source categories subject to regulation under section 112 of the CAA. While EPA did not develop the data to support this type of action, we nonetheless agreed to take comment on whether such an approach could work and still ensure that sources in the category continued to pose negligible health risks to nearby residents.

ANTICIPATED EXTERNAL REACTION We do not expect opposition from industry. Because this is one of the first residual risk proposals where we justify no further emissions reductions based on our determination that cancer, noncancer, and ecological risks are extremely low, environmental groups may express some concern on the risk policy decisions. However, we feel that our assessment is a healthprotective one and, therefore, provides a strong technical basis for our proposal.

STAFF CONTACT If you have questions about this regulatory package, please contact H. Lynn Dail at ( 919) 541 2363 or Maria Pimentel at ( 919) 541 5280.

RECOMMENDATION 4 I recommend that you sign the attached proposed action for publication in the Federal Register.

Attachment cc: Dennis Leaf/ OA Special Assistant OAR/ OAQPS/ ESD/ CCPG: ldail/ jeck( x7946): RTP/ C539 03: 9/ 30/ 05: MagTapeProPkgOct05/ ActMemMagTapeRR30Sep05. wpd


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 2 (Friday, January 3, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 216-218]
[FR Doc No: 2019-28113]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2019-0947]
RIN 1625-AA87

Security Zone; Lower Mississippi River, New Orleans, LA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary security zone.
This security zone is necessary to provide security and protection for
visiting personnel during the events related to the College Football
Playoff game. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited
unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port New Orleans
or a designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 1:30 p.m. on January 11, 2020,
through 5 p.m. on January 13, 2020.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2019-0947 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
proposed rulemaking, call or email Lieutenant Commander Corinne
Plummer, Sector New Orleans, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

COTP Captain of the Port Sector New Orleans
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are

``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.''
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists
for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect
to this rule because it would be impractical. We must establish this
security zone by January 11, 2020 in order to provide proper security
for these visiting personnel, and we do not have sufficient time to
request and respond to comments.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be contrary to the public interest because immediate
action is needed to provide adequate security to protect the public.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port Sector New
Orleans (COTP) has determined that the increased number of personnel
anticipated to be visiting the city during the College Football
playoffs requires certain security measures to ensure that the persons
and property are kept secure during the events. The Coast Guard
determined that a temporary security zone is needed for this and
related events that will be taking place adjacent to a portion of Lower
Mississippi River.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a security zone from January 11, 2020 through
January 13, 2020. The security zone will be enforced from 1:30 p.m.
through 11:30 p.m. on January 11, 2020, from 1:30 p.m. through 11:30
p.m. on January 12, 2020, and from 11:30 a.m. through 5 p.m. on January
13, 2020. The security zone will cover all navigable waters within 400-
yards of the Left Descending Bank (LDB) of the Lower Mississippi River
(LMR) between MM 94.5 and MM 96, Ahead of Passes, (AHOP), New Orleans,
Louisiana. This zone is necessary in order to provide waterside
security for the protection of visitors attending the events related to
the College Football playoffs. No vessel or person will be permitted to
enter the security zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a
designated representative. A designated representative is a
commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard
assigned to units under the operational control of USCG Sector New
Orleans. They may be contacted on VHF-FM Channel 16 or 67 or by
telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Persons and vessels permitted to enter this security zone must
transit at their slowest safe speed and comply with all lawful
directions issued by the COTP or the designated representative.
    The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public of
the enforcement times and date for this regulated area through
Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNMs), Local Notice to Mariners (LNMs),
and/or Marine Safety Information Bulletins (MSIBs), as appropriate.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This rule has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, and duration of the security zone. Vessel traffic will be
able to safely transit around this security zone which would impact a
small designated area of the Mississippi River near New Orleans, LA for
a limited number of hours on each of three days, and will not overly
impede vessel traffic during the periods in effect. Moreover, the Coast
Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine
channel 16 about the zone, and the rule would allow vessels to seek
permission to enter the zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
security zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial

direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian
tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or
Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01 and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series),
which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have
determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule involves establishing a security zone to protect
the public in a small designated area of the Mississippi River near New
Orleans, LA for a limited number of hours on each of three days. It is
categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) in
Table 3-1 of U.S. Coast Guard Environmental Planning Implementing
Procedures 5090.1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting
this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on
locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T08-0947 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T08-0947  Security Zone; Mississippi River, New Orleans, LA.

    (a) Location. The following area is a temporary security zone: All
navigable waters of Mississippi River, New Orleans, LA within 400-yards
of the Left Descending Bank (LDB) of the Lower Mississippi River (LMR)
between MM 94.5 and MM 96, Ahead of Passes, (AHOP), New Orleans,
Louisiana.
    (b) Effective period. This section is effective from 1:30 p.m. on
January 11, 2020, through 5 p.m. on January 13, 2020.
    (c) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 1:30
p.m. through 11:30 p.m. on January 11, 2020, from 1:30 p.m. through
11:30 p.m. on January 12, 2020, and from 11:30 a.m. through 5 p.m. on
January 13, 2020.
    (d) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec.  165.33 of this part, entry into or remaining within this
regulated area is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the
Port Sector New Orleans (COTP) or designated representative. A
designated representative is a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer
of the U.S. Coast Guard assigned to units under the operational control
of USCG Sector New Orleans.
    (2) Vessels requiring entry into this regulated area must request
permission from the COTP or a designated representative. They may be
contacted on VHF-FM Channel 16 or 67 or by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Persons and vessels permitted to enter this security zone must
transit at their slowest safe speed and comply with all lawful
directions issued by the COTP or the designated representative.

    Dated: December 20, 2019.
K.M. Luttrell,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector New Orleans.
[FR Doc. 2019-28113 Filed 1-2-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 29 (Thursday, February 12, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7875-7876]
[FR Doc No: 2015-02881]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4207-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2015-0002]

Vermont; 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 Vermont (FEMA-4207-DR), dated February 3,
2015, and related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: February 3, 2015.

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 February 3, 2015, 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 Vermont resulting from a severe winter storm during the period of
December 9-12, 2014, 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 Vermont.
    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, James N. Russo, of FEMA is appointed
to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
    The following areas of the State of Vermont have been designated as
adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Addison, Chittenden, Essex, Franklin, Lamoille, Orange, Orleans,
Rutland, Washington, and Windsor Counties for Public Assistance.
    All areas within the State of Vermont 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.

W. Craig Fugate,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2015-02881 Filed 2-11-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 61 (Monday, March 31, 2014)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17879-17881]
[FR Doc No: 2014-07115]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0984; FRL-9904-83-Region 9]

Revisions to the Arizona State Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct
final action under the Clean Air Act to approve a revision to the
Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP). This revision concerns
particulate matter emissions from dust generating operations that do
not already have a permit within the Phoenix planning area. We are
approving a state statute that requires the Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality to develop and adopt a general permit that
specifies episodic best management practices that are to be implemented
by certain dust-generating activities.

DATES: This rule is effective on May 30, 2014 without further notice,
unless EPA receives adverse comments by April 30, 2014. If we receive
such comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal
Register to notify the public that this direct final rule will not take
effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2012-0984, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-
line instructions.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information
(CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be
clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through
www.regulations.gov or email. www.regulations.gov is an ``anonymous
access'' system, and EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send email directly to EPA, your email address will be automatically
captured and included as part of the public comment. If EPA cannot read
your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are
available electronically at www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105-3901.
While all documents in the docket are listed at www.regulations.gov,
some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy
location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), and some may not be
publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard
copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business
hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christine Vineyard, EPA Region IX,
(415) 947-4125<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,''
and ``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What statute did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of this statute?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted statute?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is EPA evaluating the statute?
    B. Does the statute meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. Public Comment and Final Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What statute did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the Arizona statute we are approving along with the
date that it came into effect and the date it was submitted by the
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) as a revision to the
Arizona SIP.

                                            Table 1--Arizona Statute
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Statute No.                             Statute title           Effective date     Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS) section 49-      Dust action general permit; best        07/20/11        05/25/12
 457.05 (only A, B, D, and I).                   management practices;
                                                 applicability; definitions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ADEQ included the statute addressed in this document in the
submittal of Maricopa Association of Government's (MAG's) MAG 2012 Five
Percent Plan for PM-10 for the Maricopa County Nonattainment Area (May
2012) (``MAG Five Percent Plan''). On July 13, 2012, EPA determined
that the submittal of Arizona Revised Statutes (ARS) section 49-457.05
(only A, B, C, D, and I) met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part
51 Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review. On September
26, 2013, ADEQ withdrew paragraph C of ARS 49-457.05 from further
consideration as part of the Arizona SIP.

B. Are there other versions of this statute?

    There is no previous version of 49-457.05 in the SIP.

C. What is the purpose of the submitted statute?

    Particulate matter (PM) contributes to effects that are harmful to
human health and the environment, including premature mortality,
aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular disease, decreased lung
function, visibility impairment, and damage to vegetation and
ecosystems. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires States to submit
regulations that control PM emissions. The new statute obligates ADEQ
to develop and issue a dust action general permit for certain regulated
activities within the Phoenix planning area, which is designated as a
``serious'' nonattainment area for the national ambient air quality
standard (NAAQS) for particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter
less than or equal to a nominal ten micrometers (PM10).
Under the statute, the general permit must specify the Best Management
Practices (BMPs) necessary to reduce or to prevent PM10
emissions as soon as practicable before and during a day that is
forecast by ADEQ to be at high risk of dust generation. The statute
applies to the Phoenix planning area PM10 nonattainment
area, which is classified as ``serious''. The specific BMPs and other
requirements are contained in the dust action general permit itself,
which ADEQ adopted and included as appendix C, exhibit 3 of the MAG
Five Percent Plan. EPA will take action on the dust action general
permit in a separate rulemaking. EPA's technical support document (TSD)
has more information about this statute.

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is EPA evaluating the statute?

    Generally, SIP requirements must be enforceable (see section 110(a)
of the Act) and must not modify the SIP inconsistent with sections
110(l) and 193.
    Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate
enforceability requirements consistently include the following:

    1. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies,
and Deviations; Clarification to Appendix D of November 24, 1987
Federal Register Notice,'' (Blue Book), notice of availability
published in the May 25, 1988 Federal Register.
    2. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
    3. ``State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,''
57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).
    4. ``State Implementation Plans for Serious PM-10 Nonattainment
Areas, and Attainment Date Waivers for PM-10 Nonattainment Areas
Generally; Addendum to the General Preamble for the Implementation
of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' 59 FR 41998
(August 16, 1994).
    5. ``PM-10 Guideline Document,'' EPA 452/R-93-008, April 1993.

B. Does the statute meet the evaluation criteria?

    We believe this statute is consistent with the relevant policy and
guidance regarding enforceability and SIP

relaxations. The TSD has more information on our evaluation.

C. Public Comment and Final Action

    As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully
approving the submitted statute because we believe it fulfills all
relevant requirements. We do not think anyone will object to this
approval, so we are finalizing it without proposing it in advance.
However, in the Proposed Rules section of this Federal Register, we are
simultaneously proposing approval of the same submitted statute. If we
receive adverse comments by April 30, 2014, we will publish a timely
withdrawal in the Federal Register to notify the public that the direct
final approval will not take effect and we will address the comments in
a subsequent final action based on the proposal. If we do not receive
timely adverse comments, the direct final approval will be effective
without further notice on May 30, 2014. This will incorporate this
statute into the federally enforceable SIP.

III. 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 Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the State,
and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    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 May 30, 2014. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. Parties with objections to this direct final
rule are encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel
notice of proposed rulemaking for this action published in the Proposed
Rules section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an
immediate petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so
that EPA can withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in
the proposed rulemaking. 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, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: December 16, 2013.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Part 52, 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 D--Arizona

0
2. Section 52.120 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(157)(i)(A)(10) to
read as follows:

Sec.  52.120  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (157) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) * * *
    (10) Arizona Revised Statutes (West, 2012 Cumulative Pocket Part):
Title 49 (the environment), chapter 3 (air quality), article 2 (state
air pollution control), section 49-457.05 (``Dust action general
permit; best management practices; applicability; definitions''),
excluding paragraph C and paragraphs E, F, G, and H.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2014-07115 Filed 3-28-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P