[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 66 (Thursday, April 5, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20577-20582]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8208]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2012-0214; FRL-9655-3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Indiana; Central Indiana (Indianapolis) Ozone Maintenance Plan Revision
to Approved Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve Indiana's request to revise its
Central Indiana 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance air quality State
Implementation Plan (SIP) by replacing the previously approved motor
vehicle emissions budgets (budgets) with budgets developed using EPA's
Motor Vehicle Emissions Simulator (MOVES) 2010a emissions model. The
Central Indiana 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance area consists of Marion,
Boone, Hendricks, Morgan, Johnson, Shelby, Hancock, Madison, and
Hamilton Counties in Indiana. Indiana submitted this request to EPA for
parallel processing on March 2, 2012.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 7, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2012-0214, by one of the following methods:

    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Control Strategies Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    5. Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Control Strategies
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal
holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2012-0214. EPA's policy is that all comments received 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 information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
instructions on submitting comments, go to section I of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays.
We recommend that you telephone Patricia Morris, Environmental
Scientist at<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia Morris, Environmental
Scientist, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:

I. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
II. What action is EPA proposing to take?
III. What is the background for this action?
    a. SIP Budgets and Transportation Conformity
    b. Prior Approval of Budgets
    c. The MOVES Emissions Model and Regional Transportation
Conformity Grace Period
    d. Submission of New Budgets Based on MOVES2010a
IV. What are the criteria for approval?
V. What is EPA's analysis of the State's submittal?
    a. The Revised Inventories
    b. Approvability of the MOVES2010a-Based Budgets
    c. Applicability of MOBILE6.2-Based Budgets
VI. What action is EPA taking?
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    When submitting comments, remember to:
    1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    2. Follow directions--EPA may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives.
    7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period.

II. What action is EPA proposing to take?

    EPA is proposing to approve new MOVES2010a-based budgets for the
Central Indiana 1997 ozone maintenance area. The Central Indiana area
was redesignated to attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard on
October 19, 2007 (72 FR 59210), and the MOBILE6.2-based budgets were
approved in that notice. When EPA finalizes this proposed approval, the
newly submitted MOVES2010a budgets will replace the existing,
MOBILE6.2-based budgets in the state's 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance
plan and must then be used in future transportation conformity analyses
for the area. At that time, the previously approved budgets would no
longer be applicable for transportation conformity purposes.
    When EPA approves the MOVES2010a-based budgets, the Central Indiana
1997 8-hour ozone maintenance area must use the MOVES2010a-based
budgets starting on the effective date of that final approval. See 75
FR 9411-9414 for background and section III.c below for details.

III. What is the background for this action?

a. SIP Budgets and Transportation Conformity

    Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), states are required to submit, at
various times, control strategy SIP revisions and maintenance plans for
nonattainment and maintenance areas for a given National Ambient Air
Quality Standard (NAAQS). These emission control strategy SIP revisions
(e.g., reasonable further progress and attainment demonstration SIP
revisions) and maintenance plans include budgets of on-road mobile
source emissions for criteria pollutants and/or their precursors to
address pollution from cars and trucks. SIP budgets are the

portions of the total allowable emissions that are allocated to on-road
vehicle use that, together with emissions from other sources in the
area, will provide for attainment or maintenance. The budget serves as
a ceiling on emissions from an area's planned transportation system.
For more information about budgets, see the preamble to the November
24, 1993, transportation conformity rule (58 FR 62188).
    Under section 176(c) of the CAA, transportation plans,
Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPs), and transportation projects
must ``conform'' to (i.e., be consistent with) the SIP before they can
be adopted or approved. Conformity to the SIP means that transportation
activities will not cause new air quality violations, worsen existing
air quality violations, or delay timely attainment of the NAAQS or
delay an interim milestone. The transportation conformity regulations
can be found at 40 CFR Part 93.
    Before budgets can be used in conformity determinations, EPA must
affirmatively find the budgets adequate. However, adequate budgets do
not supersede approved budgets for the same CAA purpose. If the
submitted SIP budgets are meant to replace budgets for the same
purpose, as is the case with Indiana's MOVES2010a 1997 8-hour ozone
maintenance plan budgets, EPA must approve the budgets, and can affirm
that they are adequate at the same time. Once EPA approves the
submitted budgets, they must be used by state and Federal agencies in
determining whether transportation activities conform to the SIP as
required by section 176(c) of the CAA. EPA's substantive criteria for
determining the adequacy of budgets are set out in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4).

b. Prior Approval of Budgets

    EPA had previously approved budgets for the Central Indiana 8-hour
ozone maintenance area for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and
nitrogen oxides (NOX) for the years 2006 and 2020 on October
19, 2007 (72 FR 59210). These budgets were based on EPA's MOBILE6.2
emissions model. The ozone maintenance plan established 2006 budgets
for the Central Indiana area of 54.32 tons per summer day (tpd) for
VOCs and 106.19 tpd for NOX and 2020 budgets for the Central
Indiana Area of 29.52 tpd for VOCs and 35.69 tpd for NOX.
These budgets demonstrated a reduction in emissions from the monitored
attainment year and included a margin of safety.

c. The MOVES Emissions Model and Regional Transportation Conformity
Grace Period

    The MOVES model is EPA's state-of-the-art tool for estimating
highway emissions. The model is based on analyses of millions of
emission test results and considerable advances in the agency's
understanding of vehicle emissions. MOVES incorporates the latest
emissions data, more sophisticated calculation algorithms, increased
user flexibility, new software design, and significant new capabilities
relative to those reflected in MOBILE6.2.
    EPA announced the release of MOVES2010 in March 2010 (75 FR 9411).
This notice approved the use of MOVES2010 in official SIP submissions
to EPA and for regional emissions analyses for transportation
conformity purposes outside of California. In addition, the notice
started a two-year grace period before MOVES2010 is required to be used
in new regional emissions analyses for transportation conformity
determinations outside of California. EPA has since extended that grace
period until March 2, 2013 (77 FR 11394).
    On September 8, 2010, EPA released MOVES2010a, which included minor
revisions that enhance model performance and do not significantly
affect the criteria pollutant emissions results from MOVES2010.
Therefore, MOVES2010a is not considered a ``new model'' under 40 CFR
93.111. As a result, the MOVES2010 grace period for regional conformity
analyses applies to the use of MOVES2010a as well.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For more information, see 77 FR 11394.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA encouraged Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs),
Departments of Transportation, and state air agencies to examine how
MOVES would affect future transportation plan and TIP conformity
determinations so, if necessary, SIPs and budgets could be revised with
MOVES2010 or transportation plans and TIPs could be revised (as
appropriate) prior to the end of the regional transportation conformity
grace period. EPA also encouraged state and local air agencies to
consider how the release of MOVES would affect analyses supporting SIP
submissions under development.
    The Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Organization (IMPO) has used
MOVES2010a emission rates with the transportation network information
to estimate emissions in the years of the transportation plan and also
for the SIP. Indiana is revising the budgets at this time using the
latest planning assumptions including population and employment
updates. In addition, newer vehicle registration data has been used to
update the age distribution of the vehicle fleet. Since MOVES2010 (or a
minor model revision) will be required for conformity analyses after
the grace period ends, Indiana finds that updating the budgets with
MOVES2010a will prepare the IMPO for the transition to using MOVES for
conformity analyses and determinations. The interagency consultation
group has had extensive consultation on the requirements and need for
new budgets.

d. Submission of New Budgets Based on MOVES2010a

    On March 2, 2012, Indiana submitted for parallel processing
replacement budgets based on MOVES2010a for the Central Indiana area.
Indiana is currently providing public review and comment at the state
level. The state public comment period ends on March 30, 2012. EPA is
proposing to approve the MOVES2010a budgets after completion of the
public process and formal submittal of the SIP revision request.
    The MOVES2010a budgets are proposed to replace the prior approved
MOBILE6.2 budgets and are for the same years and pollutants/precursors.
The new MOVES2010a budgets are for the years 2006 and 2020 for both
VOCs and NOX. Indiana has also submitted MOVES2010a
emissions for the attainment year of 2005 as a comparison to the 2006
and 2020 budget years and for purposes of calculating a safety margin.
Table 4.1-A in the submittal demonstrates how mobile source emissions
decline from the attainment year of 2005. In 2005, the total estimated
NOX emissions from all sources (including mobile, point,
area and non-road sources) is 329.78 tpd and the total VOC emissions,
for the 2005 attainment year, from all sources is 207.94 tpd. The 2020
estimated emissions for total NOX from all sources is 136.59
tpd and the total VOC emissions from all sources is 163.69 tpd. The
mobile source emissions, when included with point, area and non-road
sources continue to demonstrate maintenance of the attainment level of
emissions in the Central Indiana area.
    No additional control measures were needed to maintain the 1997
ozone standard emissions in the Central Indiana area. The available
safety margin for NOX and VOCs was recalculated at the
bottom of table 4.1-A and an allocation of 10% for NOX and
12% for VOCs were decided upon during the interagency consultation

process. The on-road MOVES2010a based budgets are in Table 5.2-A of the
submittal and are listed as 210.93 tpd for NOX and 64.32 tpd
for VOCs in the year 2006 and 69.00 tpd for NOX and 25.47
tpd for VOCs in the year 2020. These budgets will continue to keep
emissions in the Central Indiana area below the calculated attainment
year of emissions.

IV. What are the criteria for approval?

    The CAA has always required that revisions to existing SIPs and
budgets continue to meet applicable requirements (i.e., reasonable
further progress (RFP), attainment, or maintenance). States that revise
their existing SIPs to include MOVES budgets must therefore show that
the SIP continues to meet applicable requirements with the new level of
motor vehicle emissions contained in the budgets.
    The transportation conformity rule (at 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4)(iv))
requires that ``the motor vehicle emissions budget(s), when considered
together with all other emissions sources, is consistent with
applicable requirements for reasonable further progress (RFP),
attainment, or maintenance (whichever is relevant to the given
implementation plan submission).'' This and the other adequacy criteria
found at 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) must be satisfied before EPA can find
submitted budgets adequate or approve them for conformity purposes.
    In addition, EPA has stated that areas can revise their budgets and
inventories using MOVES without revising their entire SIP if (1) the
SIP continues to meet applicable requirements when the previous motor
vehicle emissions inventories are replaced with MOVES base year and
milestone, attainment, or maintenance year inventories, and (2) the
state can document that growth and control strategy assumptions for
non-motor vehicle sources continue to be valid and any minor updates do
not change the overall conclusions of the SIP. For example, the first
criterion could be satisfied by demonstrating that the emissions
reductions between the baseline/attainment year and maintenance year
are the same or greater using MOVES than they were previously. The
Indiana submittal meets this requirement as described below in section
V.
    For more information, see EPA's latest ``Policy Guidance on the Use
of MOVES2010 for State Implementation Plan Development, Transportation
Conformity, and Other Purposes'' available online at: www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/policy.htm#models.

V. What is EPA's analysis of the State's submittal?

a. The Revised Inventories

    The Indiana SIP revision request for Central Indiana 1997 ozone
maintenance seeks to revise only the on-road mobile source inventories
and not the non-road inventories, area source inventories or point
source inventories for the 2006 and 2020 years for which the SIP
revises the budgets. IDEM has certified that the control strategies
remain the same as in the original SIP, and that no other control
strategies are necessary. This is confirmed by the monitoring data for
Central Indiana, which continues to monitor attainment for the 1997 8-
hour ozone standard. The area is also monitoring attainment for the
2008 8-hour ozone standard. Thus, the current control strategies are
continuing to keep the area in attainment of the NAAQS.
    EPA has reviewed the emission estimates for point, area and non-
road sources and concluded that no major changes to the projections
need to be made. The submittal states that ``growth and control
strategy assumptions for non-mobile sources (i.e., area, nonroad, and
point) from the original submittal for the years 2005, 2010, 2015, and
2020 were developed before the down turn in the economy over the last
several years. Because of this, the factors included in the original
submittal may project more growth than actual into the future. As a
result, the growth and control strategy assumptions for the non-mobile
sources for the years 2005, 2010, 2015 and 2020 continue to be valid
and do not affect the overall conclusions of the plan.''
    Indiana confirms that the SIP continues to demonstrate its purpose
of maintaining the 1997 ozone standard because the emissions are
continuing to decrease from the attainment year to the final year of
the maintenance plan. The total emissions in the revised SIP (which
includes MOVES2010a emissions from mobile sources) are 329.78 tpd for
NOX and 207.94 tpd for VOCs in the 2005 attainment year. The
total emissions from all sources in the 2020 year are 136.59 tpd for
NOX and 163.69 tpd for VOCs. These totals demonstrate that
emissions in the Central Indiana area are continuing to decline and
remain below the attainment levels.
    Indiana has submitted MOVES2010a-based budgets for the Central
Indiana area that are clearly identified in Table 5.2-A of the
submittal. The budgets for 2006 are 210.93 tpd for NOX and
64.32 tpd for VOCs. The budgets for 2020 are 69.00 tpd for
NOX and 25.47 tpd for VOCs.

b. Approvability of the MOVES2010a-Based Budgets

    EPA is proposing to approve the MOVES2010a-based budgets submitted
by the state for use in determining transportation conformity in the
Central Indiana 1997 ozone maintenance area. EPA is making this
proposal based on our evaluation of these budgets using the adequacy
criteria found in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and our in-depth evaluation of
the State's submittal and SIP requirements. EPA has determined, based
on its evaluation, that the area's maintenance plan would continue to
serve its intended purpose with the submitted MOVES2010a-based budgets
and that the budgets themselves will meet the adequacy criteria in the
conformity rule at 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) after the state public hearing
is completed and the SIP is formally submitted.
    EPA is parallel processing this SIP revision request which means
that EPA is proposing approval at the same time that the state is
completing the public process at the state level. This SIP revision
request will not be complete and will not meet all the adequacy
criteria until the state public process is complete and the SIP
revision is submitted in final with a letter from the Governor or
Governor's designee. EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revision
request after completion of the state public process and final
submittal. If any comments are received, EPA will consider those
comments received both at the state and Federal level.
    EPA is moving forward with proposing approval with this parallel
process because transportation projects cannot be amended to the
Central Indiana Transportation Plan and transportation improvement
program until this budget replacement is completed. The Central Indiana
area has three MPOs in the maintenance area (Indianapolis, Anderson and
a portion of the Columbus, Indiana MPO). These three MPOs are required
by the conformity rule to conduct conformity determinations together
because they are all part of the same maintenance area with one set of
ozone budgets for that area (there are not separate budgets for each
MPO). The budgets need to be updated, not only to accommodate the use
of MOVES2010a, but also because of the updated planning assumptions for
mobile sources.
    The adequacy criteria found in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) are as follows:

     The submitted SIP was endorsed by [the Governor/Gov's
designee] and was subject to a state public hearing (Sec.
93.118(e)(4)(i));
     The submitted SIP underwent consultation among Federal,
state, and local agencies and the state fully documented the submittal
(Sec.  93.118(e)(4)(ii));
     The budgets are clearly identified and precisely
quantified (Sec.  93.118(e)(4)(iii));
     The budgets, when considered with other emission sources,
are consistent with applicable requirements for [reasonable further
progress/attainment/maintenance] (Sec.  93.118(e)(4)(iv));
     The budgets are consistent with and clearly related to the
emissions inventory and control measures in the SIP (Sec.
93.118(e)(4)(v)); and
     The revisions explain and document changes to the previous
budgets, impacts on point and area source emissions and changes to
established safety margins (Sec.  93.118(e)(4)(vi)).
    Our review finds that Indiana has met all of the adequacy criteria,
except the public process and final submittal by the Governor or
Governor's designee. The interagency consultation group, which is
composed of the state air agency, state Department of Transportation,
Federal Highway Administration, EPA and the MPOs for the area, have
discussed and reviewed the budgets developed with MOVES2010a and the
safety margin allocation. The budgets are clearly identified and
precisely quantified in the submittal in table 5.2-A. The budgets when
considered with other emissions sources (point, area, non-road) are
consistent with continued maintenance of the 1997 ozone standard. The
budgets are clearly related to the emissions inventory and control
measures in the SIP. The changes from the previous budgets are clearly
explained with the change in the model from MOBILE6.2 to MOVES2010a and
the revised and updated planning assumptions. The inputs to the model
are detailed in the Appendix to the submittal. EPA has reviewed the
inputs to the MOVES2010a modeling and participated in the consultation
process. The Federal Highway Administration--Indiana Division and the
Indiana Department of Transportation have taken a lead role in working
with the MPO and contractor to provide accurate, timely information and
inputs to the MOVES2010a model runs. The IMPO network model and
Anderson MPO network model provided the vehicle miles of travel and
other necessary data from the travel demand networks.
    The CAA requires that revisions to existing SIPs and budgets
continue to meet applicable requirements (in this case, maintenance).
Therefore, states that revise existing SIPs with MOVES must show that
the SIP continues to meet applicable requirements with the new level of
motor vehicle emissions calculated by the new model.
    To that end, Indiana's submitted MOVES2010a budgets meet EPA's two
criteria for revising budgets without revising the entire SIP:
    (1) The SIP continues to meet applicable requirements when the
previous motor vehicle emissions inventories are replaced with
MOVES2010a base year and milestone, attainment, or maintenance year
inventories, and
    (2) The state can document that growth and control strategy
assumptions for non-motor vehicle sources continue to be valid and any
minor updates do not change the overall conclusions of the SIP.
    The State has documented that growth and control strategy
assumptions continue to be valid and do not change the overall
conclusions of the maintenance plan. The emission estimates for point,
area and non-road sources have not changed. The submittal states that
``growth and control strategy assumptions for non-mobile sources (i.e.
area, non-road, and point) from the original submittal for the years
2005, 2010, 2015, 2020 were developed before the down turn in the
economy over the last several years. Because of this, the factors
included in the original submittal may project more growth than actual
into the future. As a result, the growth and control strategy
assumptions for the non-mobile sources for the years 2005, 2010, 2015
and 2020 continue to be valid and do not affect the overall conclusions
of the plan.''
    Indiana confirms that the SIP continues to demonstrate its purpose
of maintaining the 1997 ozone standard because the emissions are
continuing to decrease from the attainment year to the final year of
the maintenance plan. The total emissions in the revised SIP (which
includes MOVES2010a emissions for mobile sources) decrease from 329.78
tpd for NOX and 207.94 tpd for VOCs in the 2005 attainment
year to 136.59 tpy NOX and 163.69 tpd VOC in 2020. These
totals demonstrate that emissions in the Central Indiana area are
continuing to decline and remain below the attainment levels. The
following tables show total emissions in the Central Indiana area
including point, area, non-road, and mobile sources and demonstrates
the declining emissions from the 2005 attainment year.

                            Table of Total Emissions With MOVES2010a Mobile Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                2005              2010              2015              2020
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC.....................................            207.94            189.75            177.43            163.69
NOX.....................................            329.78            223.43            168.61            136.59
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on our review of the SIP and the new budgets provided, EPA
has determined that the SIP will continue to meet its requirements if
the revised motor vehicle emissions inventories are replaced with
MOVES2010a inventories.

c. Applicability of MOBILE6.2-Based Budgets

    Pursuant to the State's request, EPA is proposing that, if we
finalize the approval of the revised budgets, the state's existing
MOBILE6.2-based budgets will no longer be applicable for transportation
conformity purposes upon the effective date of that final approval.
    In addition, once EPA approves the MOVES2010a-based budgets, the
regional transportation conformity grace period for using MOVES2010
(and subsequent minor revisions) for the pollutants included in these
budgets will end for the Central Indiana ozone maintenance area on the
effective date of that final approval.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ For more information, see Question 11 of EPA's ``Policy
Guidance on the Use of MOVES2010 for State Implementation Plan
Development, Transportation Conformity, and Other Purposes'' and 75
FR 9411.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VI. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing in this action that the Central Indiana existing
approved budgets for VOCs and NOX for 2006 and 2020 for the
1997 8-hour ozone

maintenance plan be replaced with new budgets based on the MOVES2010a
emissions model. Once this proposal is finalized, future transportation
conformity determinations would use the new, MOVES2010a-based budgets
and would no longer use the existing MOBILE6.2-based budgets. EPA is
also proposing to find that the Central Indiana area's maintenance plan
would continue to meet its requirements as set forth under the CAA when
these new budgets are included.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
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 CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: March 26, 2012.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2012-8208 Filed 4-4-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 197 (Friday, October 10, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61362-61364]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24206]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-73305; File No. SR-BX-2014-047]

 Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.; Notice of
Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Amend Fees for Optional Wireless
Connectivity for Co-Located Clients

October 6, 2014.
    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 30, 2014, NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. (``BX'' or ``Exchange'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule change as described in Items I, II, and III below, which
Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission is publishing
this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from
interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange is proposing a rule change to amend fees assessed to
clients for wireless connectivity that enables clients to receive data
from BX. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend fees assessed for
remote multi-cast ITCH (``MITCH'') Wave Ports for clients co-located at
other third-party data centers, through which BX TotalView ITCH market
data will be distributed after delivery to those data centers via
wireless network. The text of the proposed rule change is available at
http://nasdaqomxbx.cchwallstreet.com, at the Exchange'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, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    BX is proposing to amend fees assessed under BX Rule 7015 for
remote MITCH Wave Ports for clients co-located at other third-party
data centers, through which BX TotalView ITCH market data will be
distributed after delivery to those data centers via wireless network.
    BX offers optional wireless connectivity to clients who had
requested such connectivity for other markets' data. BX uses network
vendors to supply wireless connectivity from the Carteret, NJ data
center to the data centers of other exchanges.\3\ The vendor installs,
tests and maintains the necessary communication equipment for this
wireless network between the data centers. The wireless connectivity is
an optional alternative to fiber optic network connectivity, providing
lower latency because the wireless signals travel a straight, unimpeded
line and because light waves travel faster through air than through
glass (fiber optics). Because wireless transmission of such data
requires an unimpeded line of sight between Carteret and the data
center of the market to which it is connecting, BX and its vendors
incur costs associated with maintaining hardware and leasing towers on
which its microwave dishes and the associated hardware are mounted,
which generally increase as distance between data centers increase.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ NASDAQ OMX acts as re-distributor of these third-party
market data feeds, capturing the data at the originating data
centers and transporting the data to the Carteret data center.
    \4\ Because direct line of sight between Carteret and the data
centers of other exchanges is not possible, BX's vendors lease as
many towers and associated equipment as needed to ensure an unbroken
line of sight between individual towers, repeating the signal until
it arrives at its destination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    BX originally planned to create wireless connections to a data
center in Newark used by NYSE as a SFTI Network Point of Presence,
which is approximately 15 miles from BX's Carteret data center. In
2013, NYSE began to allow wireless vendors and telco vendors to connect
directly to its data center in Mahwah, NJ,\5\ which is approximately 40
miles from Carteret. Because the wireless data feeds are designed to
offer high-speed and low latency,\6\ BX determined to direct its
wireless vendors to connect to the Mahwah data center instead of the
Newark SFTI Point of Presence. As a consequence, BX is proposing to
increase the fees assessed under Rule 7015 for MITCH Wave Ports
relating to connectivity to data received wirelessly to and from
Mahwah, which will help offset greater costs incurred in leasing
towers, and purchasing and maintaining wireless equipment to cover the
increased distance as well as the higher costs to house equipment and
connections within the Mahwah data center.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See http://www1.nyse.com/press/1337855269042.html.
    \6\ Wireless connectivity is an optional alternative to higher
latency fiber optic network connectivity.
    \7\ The Exchange notes that The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC recently
increased fees assessed for its MITCH Wave Ports that connect to
Mahwah. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73132 (September 17,
2014), 79 FR 56836 (September 23, 2014) (SR-NASDAQ-2014-092).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    BX currently assesses an installation charge for the remote port,
at each of the data center locations, of $2,500 for installation, and
$5,000 as a monthly recurring fee.\8\ Each of the data centers that a
client may subscribe to is approximately the same distance from the
Carteret data center. As discussed above, BX will be providing a direct
connection to NYSE's data center in Mahwah, which is significantly
farther from Carteret. The Exchange incurs higher costs for housing its
equipment at Mahwah, including higher fees for power, cabinets and
connections. Moreover and as noted above, the Exchange and its vendors
incur higher costs in leasing towers and equipment to connect Carteret
to Mahwah. As a consequence, BX is proposing to increase the one-time
installation charge to $5,000, and the monthly recurring fee to $7,500.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Clients opting to pay for the remote MITCH Wave Ports will
continue to be fee liable for the applicable market data fees as
described in BX Rules 7019, 7023, and 7026.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act \9\ in general, and with Sections 6(b)(4) and (b)(5) of
the Act,\10\ 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 is designed to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4) and (5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which
exchanges offer co-location services as a means to facilitate the
trading activities of those

members who believe that co-location enhances the efficiency of their
trading. Accordingly, fees charged for co-location services are
constrained by the active competition for the order flow of such
members. If a particular exchange charges excessive fees for co-
location services, affected members will opt to terminate their co-
location arrangements with that exchange, and adopt a possible range of
alternative strategies, including co-locating with a different
exchange, placing their servers in a physically proximate location
outside the exchange's data center, or pursuing trading strategies not
dependent upon co-location. Accordingly, the exchange charging
excessive fees would stand to lose not only co-location revenues but
also revenues associated with the execution of orders routed to it by
affected members.
    Moreover, the Exchange believes the proposed increased fees are
reasonable because they are based on the Exchange's increased costs
incurred in connecting to Mahwah. As discussed, the greater distance
between Carteret and Mahwah results in greater costs incurred by the
Exchange and its vendors, and the Exchange is assessed higher charges
for housing its equipment at Mahwah as compared to other exchanges'
locations. The proposed fees allow the Exchange to recoup these costs
and make a profit, while providing clients the ability to reduce
latency in the transmission of data by connecting directly to NYSE's
data center wirelessly.
    The Exchange believes the proposed increased fees are equitably
allocated in that all clients that voluntarily select connectivity to,
and to receive data from, BX through this service is [sic] charged the
same amount for the same services. Although the proposed fee is higher
than the fees charged for connectivity to other exchanges' data
centers, they are reflective of the increased costs associated with
connecting to the Mahwah data center. Accordingly, the increased fees
are allocated equitably on those that receive the benefit of the
connectivity.
    The Exchange's proposal is also consistent with the requirement of
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act that Exchange rules be designed to promote
just and equitable principles of trade [sic] to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade [sic], to foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing
information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest; and are not designed to
permit unfair discrimination between clients, issuers, brokers, or
dealers. The proposal is consistent with these requirements because it
provides optional connectivity that promotes low-latency transfer of
data to market participants. As is true of all co-location services,
all co-located clients have the option to select this voluntary
connectivity option, and there is no differentiation among clients with
regard to the fees charged for the wireless connectivity to, and
wirelessly-received data from Mahwah.

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

    BX 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. To the contrary,
this proposal will promote competition for distribution of market data
by offering an optional direct connection to the NYSE data center,
which will improve the latency of the connection to BX data that would
be available through NYSE's STFI Point of Presence in Newark. As
discussed above, the Exchange believes that fees for co-location
services, including those proposed for microwave connectivity, are
constrained by the robust competition for order flow among exchanges
and non-exchange markets, because co-location exists to advance that
competition. Further, excessive fees for co-location services,
including for wireless technology, would serve to impair an exchange's
ability to compete for order flow rather than burdening competition.

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

    The foregoing change has become effective pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A) of the Act,\11\ and paragraph (f) \12\ of Rule 19b-4,
thereunder. At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed
rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BX-2014-047 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2014-047. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal offices of the Exchange.
All comments received will be posted without change; the Commission
does not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You
should submit only information that you wish to make available
publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-

2014-047 and should be submitted on or before October 31, 2014.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-24206 Filed 10-9-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 220 (Thursday, November 16, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 53514]
[FR Doc No: 2017-24908]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4339-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2017-0001]

Puerto Rico; Amendment No. 5 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (FEMA-4339-DR), dated September 20, 2017,
and related determinations.

DATES: This amendment was issued November 2, 2017.

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 2, 2017, the President amended the cost-sharing
arrangements regarding Federal funds provided under the authority of
the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42
U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford Act''), in a letter to Brock Long,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of
Homeland Security, under Executive Order 12148, as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in certain areas of the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico resulting from Hurricane Maria beginning
on September 17, 2017, and continuing, is of sufficient severity and
magnitude that special cost-sharing arrangements are warranted
regarding Federal funds provided under the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.
(the ``Stafford Act'').
    Due to the extraordinary level of impact to the Commonwealth's
infrastructure caused by Hurricane Maria as well as a debt burden of
more than $120 billion subject to court-supervised debt
restructuring, and recognizing the Commonwealth's election on
October 30, 2017, to participate in alternative procedures for all
large project funding for Public Assistance Categories C-G pursuant
to section 428 of the Stafford Act, I amend my declarations of
September 20, 2017 and September 26, 2017, to authorize Federal
funds for all categories of Public Assistance at 90 percent of total
eligible costs, except for assistance previously approved at 100
percent, subject to the following grant conditions, which I direct
you to reflect in the agreement between the Commonwealth and the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA):
    1. The Commonwealth establish a Commonwealth grant oversight
authority, supported by third-party experts, to perform as the grant
recipient for Public Assistance and Hazard Mitigation funding to
ensure sound project management and enhanced, centralized control
and oversight over the distribution of FEMA grant funds;
    2. All large project funding for Public Assistance Categories C-
G be obligated by FEMA only through alternative procedures as FEMA
shall establish under section 428 of the Stafford Act, including
third-party independent expert validation of estimates for projects
exceeding a threshold FEMA shall establish consistent with law; and
    3. Hazard Mitigation grant funding available under section 404
of the Stafford Act be prioritized toward protecting Federal
investments in Puerto Rico's public infrastructure.
    This adjustment to Commonwealth and local cost sharing applies
only to Public Assistance costs and direct Federal assistance
eligible for such adjustments under the law. The Stafford Act
specifically prohibits a similar adjustment for funds provided for
Other Needs Assistance (section 408) and the Hazard Mitigation Grant
Program (section 404). These funds will continue to be reimbursed at
75 percent of total eligible costs.
    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.

Brock Long,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2017-24908 Filed 11-15-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 93 (Monday, May 14, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 28375]
[FR Doc No: 2012-11580]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PR12-25-000]

Eagle Rock Desoto Pipeline, L.P.; Notice of Petition for Rate
Approval

    Take notice that on May 1, 2012, Eagle Rock Desoto Pipeline, L.P.
(Desoto) filed a Rate Election pursuant to 284.123(b)(1) of the
Commissions regulations. Desoto proposes to utilize rates that are the
same as those contained in Desoto's transportation rate schedules for
comparable intrastate service on file with the Railroad Commission of
Texas as more fully detailed in the petition.
    Any person desiring to participate in this rate filing must file in
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered
by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken,
but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any
person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or
motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests
must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing
an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on or before the
intervention or protest date need not serve motions to intervene or
protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 7 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, May 14, 2012.

    Dated: May 7, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-11580 Filed 5-11-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: February 27, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 38)]
[Notices]
[Page 8721]
[DOCID:fr27fe07-63]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP06-34-002]

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation; Notice of Compliance
Filing

February 21, 2007.
    Take notice that on February 12, 2007, Transcontinental Gas Pipe
Line Corporation (Transco) submitted a compliance filing pursuant to
Ordering Paragraph (B)(1) of the Commission's Order issued January 11,
2007, in Docket No. CP06-34-001.
    Transco states that copies of the filing were served on parties on
the official service list in the above-captioned proceeding.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing will be considered by the
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Such protests
must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing a
protest must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the
proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests in lieu
of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons

unable to file electronically should submit an original and 14 copies
of the protest to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on March 8, 2007.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-3342 Filed 2-26-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 73 (Monday, April 17, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 23351-23353]
[FR Doc No: 2023-08013]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2023-0207]
RIN 1625-AA87

Security Zone; Kokosing ROV Survey Operation, Straits of
Mackinac, MI

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary security zone for
navigable waters within a 500-yard radius of Tug Valerie B, Tug Nancy
Anne, Tug Champion, Tug General and crew boat Timmy V. The security
zone is needed to protect the remotely operated vehicle survey
operations from other vessels. Entry of vessels into this zone is
prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port
Sault Ste. Marie.

DATES: This rule is effective from May 1, 2023, through May 31, 2023.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2023-0207 in the search box and click ``Search.'' Next, in the Document
Type column, select ``Supporting & Related Material.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email LT Deaven S. Palenzuela, Sector Sault Sainte Marie
Waterways Management Division, U. S. Coast Guard at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

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

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because it is impractical to publish an NPRM
by the date operations begin and we must establish a security zone in
order to ensure that remotely operated vehicle (``ROV'') operations can
be conducted safely.
    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 impracticable because immediate action is needed to
respond to the potential safety hazards posed by vessel traffic to
Kokosing Industrial's ROV survey operations.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034, 70051, 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; and Department
of Homeland Security Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3. The
Captain of the Port Sault Ste. Marie (COTP) has determined that
potential safety hazards posed by other vessels to ROV survey
operations within one nautical mile of charted submerged pipeline or
cable in the Straits of Mackinac RNA starting May 1, 2023, will be a
concern and is establishing security zone within a 500-yard radius of
Tug Valerie B, Tug Nancy Anne, Tug Champion, Tug General and crew boat
Timmy V. This rule is needed to protect the vessels and personnel
involved in the ROV survey operations from other vessels transiting the
Straits of Mackinac at the same time this project is being conducted.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a security zone from May 1, 2023 through May
31, 2023. The security zone will cover all navigable waters within 500
yards of Tug Valerie B, Tug Nancy Anne, Tug Champion, Tug General and
crew boat Timmy V. The duration of the security zone is intended to
protect personnel and vessels involved with conducting the ROV survey
operations. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the security
zone without obtaining permission from the COTP.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this
rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size and
location of the security zone. Vessel traffic will be able to safely
transit around this security zone which would impact a small designated
area of the Straits of Mackinac. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue a
Local Notice to Mariners about the security 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
call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and
Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of
a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a
security zone lasting from May 1, 2023 through May 31, 2023 that will
prohibit entry within 500 yards of Tug Valerie B, Tug Nancy Anne, Tug
Champion, Tug General and crew boat Timmy V conducting ROV survey
operations within one nautical mile of charted submerged pipeline or
cable in the Straits of Mackinac RNA. It is categorically excluded from
further review under paragraph L[60(a)] of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS
Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Memorandum for Record
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 call or email the person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so
that your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and record
keeping 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.
00170.1, Revision No. 01.3.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T09-0207 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T09-0207  Security Zone; Tugs Valerie B, Nancy Anne,
Champion, and General and crew boat Timmy V operating in the Straits of
Mackinac, MI.

    (a) Location. The following areas are security zones: All navigable
water within 500 yards of the Tugs Valerie B, Nancy Anne, Champion and
General and crew boat Timmy V while conducting ROV survey operations
within one nautical mile of charted submerged pipeline or cable within
the Straits of Mackinac RNA.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section, designated representative
means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain,
petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel and a
Federal, State, and local officer designated by or assisting the
Captain of the Port Sault Sainte Marie (COTP) in the enforcement of the
security zone.
    (c) Regulations. (1) Under the general security zone regulations in
subpart D of this part, you may not enter the security zone described
in paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the COTP or the
COTP's designated representative.
    (2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's
representative by VHF Channel 16 or telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>. Those
in the security zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions
given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.

    Dated: April 3, 2023.
A.R. Jones,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sault Sainte Marie.
[FR Doc. 2023-08013 Filed 4-14-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 11 (Wednesday, January 18, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2906-2907]
[FR Doc No: 2023-00954]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Sunshine Act Meetings

    The following notice of meeting is published pursuant to section
3(a) of the government in the Sunshine Act (Pub. L. 94-409), 5 U.S.C.
552b:

AGENCY HOLDING MEETING: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

TIME AND DATE: January 19, 2023, 10:00 a.m.

PLACE:  Room 2C, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.

STATUS: Open to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Agenda. * Note--Items listed on the agenda
may be deleted without further notice.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    For a recorded message listing items stricken from or added to the
meeting, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    This is a list of matters to be considered by the Commission. It
does not include a listing of all documents relevant to the items on
the agenda. All public documents, however, may be viewed on line at the
Commission's website at https://elibrary.ferc.gov/eLibrary/search using
the eLibrary link.

                                                 1097th--Meeting
                                  [Open Meeting; January 19, 2023, 10:00 a.m.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Item No.                     Docket No.                                    Company
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Administrative
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A-1.....................  AD23-1-000......................  Agency Administrative Matters.
A-2.....................  AD23-2-000......................  Customer Matters, Reliability, Security and Market
                                                             Operations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Electric
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E-1.....................  RM22-3-000......................  Internal Network Security Monitoring for High and
                                                             Medium Impact Bulk Electric System Cyber Systems.
E-2.....................  OMITTED.........................
E-3.....................  OMITTED.........................
E-4.....................  ER22-2970-001...................  AEP Generation Resources Inc.
                          ER22-2983-001...................  Ohio Power Company.
                          ER22-2971-001...................  Ohio Valley Electric Corporation.
E-5.....................  ER22-93-001.....................  Tatanka Ridge Wind, LLC.
E-6.....................  ER23-479-000; TS23-1-000........  Bellflower Solar 1, LLC.
E-7.....................  OMITTED.........................
E-8.....................  ER23-404-000....................  Shullsburg Wind Farm LLC, Grant County Solar, LLC,
                                                             and Red Barn Energy, LLC.
E-9.....................  ER22-379-003; ER22-379-004......  Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
E-10....................  ER18-2358-006...................  Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
                          ER19-1357-004; ER20-1313-001      GridLiance High Plains LLC.
                           (consolidated).
E-11....................  ER22-2462-000; EL22-27-000......  Alabama Power Company, Georgia Power Company, and
                                                             Mississippi Power Company.
E-12....................  EL22-54-001.....................  Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
E-13....................  EL22-15-001.....................  New York Power Authority.
                          ER22-1014-002...................  New York Independent System Operator, Inc. and New
                                                             York Power Authority.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Gas
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
G-1.....................  RP23-198-000....................  Tampa Electric Company and Peoples Gas System.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Hydro
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H-1.....................  P-4451-024......................  Green Mountain Power Corporation and City of
                                                             Somersworth, New Hampshire.
H-2.....................  P-199-205.......................  South Carolina Public Service Authority.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Certificates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C-1.....................  CP21-44-001.....................  LA Storage, LLC.
C-2.....................  CP16-454-005....................  Rio Grande LNG, LLC.
C-3.....................  CP22-474-000; CP22-475-000; CP22- West Texas Gas, Inc. and West Texas Gas Utility,
                           476-000.                          LLC.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A free webcast of this event is available through the Commission's
website. Anyone with internet access who desires to view this event can
do so by navigating to www.ferc.gov's Calendar of Events and locating
this event in the Calendar. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
provides technical support for the free webcasts. Please call (202)
502-8680 or email [email protected] if you have any questions.

    Immediately following the conclusion of the Commission Meeting, a
press briefing will be held in the Commission Meeting Room. Members of
the public may view this briefing in the designated overflow room. This
statement is intended to notify the public that the press briefings
that follow Commission meetings may now be viewed remotely at
Commission headquarters but will not be telecast.

    Issued: January 12, 2023.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-00954 Filed 1-13-23; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 149 (Thursday, August 2, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 46102-46103]
[FR Doc No: 2012-18867]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4068-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2012-0002]

Florida; Amendment No. 5 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Florida (FEMA-4068-DR), dated July 3, 2012, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: July 26, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, 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 the incident
period for this disaster is closed effective July 26, 2012.

    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. 2012-18867 Filed 8-1-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P