[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 190 (Wednesday, October 1, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 59173-59176]
[FR Doc No: 2014-23163]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2014-0813]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Navy UNDET, Outer Apra Harbor and Adjacent Waters,
Guam

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish safety zones for
underwater detonation operations in the waters of outer Apra Harbor,
Guam. This rule would be effective from 2 p.m. on November 5, 2014,
until 4 p.m. on November 6, 2014 (kilo, Local Time). The enforcement
period for this rule would be from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. on November 5, 2014
and from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. November 6, 2014. The Coast Guard believes
this safety zone regulation is necessary to protect all persons and
vessels that would otherwise transit or be within the affected area
from possible safety hazards associated with an underwater detonation
operation.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before October 21, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number using
any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail or Delivery: 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. Deliveries
accepted between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion
of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for further instructions
on submitting comments. To avoid duplication, please use only one of
these three methods.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Chief, Kristina Gauthier, Sector Guam, U.S. Coast Guard;
(671) 355-4866<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on
viewing or submitting material to the docket, call Cheryl F. Collins,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. 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.

1. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, 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 at
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, it
will be considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully
transmit the comment. If you fax, hand deliver, 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 email 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,
type the docket number USCG-2014-0813 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click
``SEARCH.'' Click on ``Submit a Comment'' on the line associated with
this rulemaking.
    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 comments 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 the rule
based on your comments.

2. 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,
type the docket number USCG-2014-0813 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click
``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with
this rulemaking. 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.

3. 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).

B. Regulatory History and Information

    There have been two previous temporary final rules for safety zones
around underwater detonations by the U.S. Navy at this location in the
past year. Those rules were assigned docket numbers USCG-2014-0527 and
USCG-2014-0356. We learned of the need for the safety zone regulation
we are proposing on 26 August 2014. We have provided a 20-day comment
period for this proposed rule. If after considering comments we decide
to issue a temporary final rule, we would need to make that rule
effective less than 30 days after publication and would cite to good
cause for doing so under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3).

C. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis for this rule is the Coast Guard's authority to
establish regulated navigation areas and other limited access areas: 33
U.S.C 1231; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; and Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1. A safety zone is a water area, shore
area, or water and shore area, for which access is limited to
authorized person, vehicles, or vessels for safety purposes.
    The purpose of this rulemaking is to protect mariners from the
potential hazards associated with a U.S. Navy training exercise which
include detonation of underwater explosives. Approaching too close to
such exercises could potentially expose the mariner to flying debris or
other hazardous conditions.

D. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    In order to protect the public from the hazards of the U.S. Navy
training exercise, the Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary
safety zone regulation, effective from 2 p.m. November 5, 2014, through
4 p.m. November 6, 2014 (Kilo, Local Time). The enforcement periods for
this rule would be from 2 p.m. to 4 p.m. on November 5, 2014 and from 2
p.m. to 4 p.m. on November 6, 2014.
    The safety zones would be located within the Guam COTP Zone (See 33
CFR 3.70-15), and will cover all waters bounded by a circle with a 700-
yard radius for vessels and a 1367 yard radius for persons in the
water, centered at: 13[deg]27'42'' N and 144[deg]38'30'' E, from the
surface of the water to the ocean floor.
    The general regulations governing safety zones contained in 33 CFR
165.23 apply. Entry into, transit through or anchoring within safety
zones is prohibited unless authorized by the COTP or a designated
representative thereof. Any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty
officer, and any other COTP representative permitted by law, may
enforce the zone. The COTP may waive any of the requirements of this
rule for any person, vessel, or class of vessel upon finding that
application of the safety zone regulation is unnecessary or impractical

for the purpose of maritime safety. Vessels or persons violating this
rule may be subject to the penalties set forth in 33 U.S.C. 1232 and/or
50 U.S.C. 192.

E. Regulatory Analyses

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

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. The Coast Guard expects
the economic impact of this rule to be extremely minimal based on the
short duration of the safety zone regulation and the limited geographic
area affected by it.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 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
proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    This safety zone regulation will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following
reasons. This rule would affect the following entities, some of which
might be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending
to transit through a portion of the zones from 2 p.m. through 4 p.m. on
November 5 and 6, 2014. This rule would be enforced for only 2 hours
each day and vessel traffic can pass safely around the safety zones.
The safety zones do not encompass the entire harbor and safe transit is
still allowed to pass through, in and out of Apra Harbor. Further
traffic will be allowed to pass through the zones with the permission
of the Coast Guard Patrol Commander<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before the effective
period, we will issue maritime advisories widely available to users of
outer Apra Harbor.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    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 proposed 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, above.
    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 proposed rule or any
policy or action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

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

5. Federalism

    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 proposed rule under that Order and
determined that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

6. 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.

7. 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 proposed rule would not
result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.

8. Taking of Private Property

    This proposed rule would 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.

9. Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed 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.

10. Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks

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

11. Indian Tribal Governments

    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would 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.

12. Energy Effects

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant energy action'' under
Executive Order 13211, Actions

Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

    This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed 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 made a preliminary determination 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 proposed rule
involves a closed area of Outer Apra Harbor, to vessel traffic, for 2
hours on each of 2 days. This rule is categorically excluded from
further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant
Instruction. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist supporting
this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are
available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any
comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this proposed rule.

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 proposes
to amend 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. 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; Public Law
107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T14-0813 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T14-0813  Safety Zones; Outer Apra Harbor and adjacent
waters, Guam.

    (a) Location. The following areas, within the Guam Captain of the
Port (COTP) Zone (See 33 CFR 3.70-15), from the surface of the water to
the ocean floor, are safety zones:
    (1) Seven-hundred-yard-radius zone. All waters bounded by a circle
with a 700-yard radius centered at 13[deg]27'42'' N and 144[deg]38'30''
E, (NAD 1983) are included.
    (2) One-thousand-three-hundred-and-sixty-seven-yard-radius zone.
All waters bounded by a circle with a 1367-yard radius centered at
13[deg]27'42'' N and 144[deg]38'30'' E, (NAD 1983) are included.
    (b) Effective period. This section is effective from 2 p.m. on
November 5, 2014 through 4 p.m. on November 6, 2014 (Kilo, Local Time).
    (c) Enforcement periods. The safety zones described in paragraph
(a) of this section will be enforced during the U.S. Navy underwater
detonation operation, from 2 p.m. until 4 p.m. on November 5, 2014, and
2 p.m. to 4 p.m. on November 6, 2014 (Kilo, Local Time).
    (d) Regulations. The general regulations governing safety zones
contained in 33 CFR 165.23 apply. No vessels may enter or transit
safety zone (a)(1) and no persons in the water may enter or transit
safety zone (a)(2) unless authorized by the COTP or a designated
representative thereof.
    (e) Enforcement. Any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty
officer, and any other COTP representative permitted by law, may
enforce these temporary safety zones.
    (f) Waiver. The COTP may waive any of the requirements of this
section for any person, vessel, or class of vessel upon finding that
application of the safety zone is unnecessary or impractical for the
purpose of maritime security.
    (g) Penalties. Vessels or persons violating this rule are subject
to the penalties set forth in 33 U.S.C. 1232 and 50 U.S.C. 192.

    Dated: September 7, 2014.
Brenden J. Kettner,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Guam, Acting.
[FR Doc. 2014-23163 Filed 9-30-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 40 (Wednesday, February 29, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12283-12284]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4773]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of FERC Staff Attendance at the Entergy Regional State
Committee Meeting

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission hereby gives notice that
members of its staff may attend the meeting noted below. Their
attendance is part of the Commission's ongoing outreach efforts.

Entergy Regional State Committee Meeting

    February 29, 2012 (1 pm-5 pm),
    March 1, 2012 (8 am-12 pm).
    This meeting will be held at the Astor Crowne Plaza Hotel, 739
Canal Street, New Orleans, LA 70130. The hotel phone number is 504-962-
0500.
    The discussions may address matters at issue in the following
proceedings:

Docket No. OA07-32.....................  Entergy Services, Inc.
Docket No. EL00-66.....................  Louisiana Public Service
                                          Commission v. Entergy
                                          Services, Inc.
Docket No. EL01-88.....................  Louisiana Public Service
                                          Commission v. Entergy
                                          Services, Inc.
Docket No. EL07-52.....................  Louisiana Public Service
                                          Commission v. Entergy
                                          Services, Inc.
Docket No. EL08-51.....................  Louisiana Public Service
                                          Commission v. Entergy
                                          Services, Inc.
Docket No. EL08-60.....................  Ameren Services Co. v. Entergy
                                          Services, Inc.
Docket No. EL09-43.....................  Arkansas Public Service
                                          Commission v. Entergy
                                          Services, Inc.
Docket No. EL09-50.....................  Louisiana Public Service
                                          Commission v. Entergy
                                          Services, Inc.
Docket No. EL09-61.....................  Louisiana Public Service
                                          Commission v. Entergy
                                          Services, Inc.
Docket No. EL10-55.....................  Louisiana Public Service
                                          Commission v. Entergy
                                          Services, Inc.
Docket No. EL10-65.....................  Louisiana Public Service
                                          Commission v. Entergy
                                          Services, Inc.
Docket No. EL11-34.....................  Midwest Independent System
                                          Transmission Operator, Inc.
Docket No. ER05-1065...................  Entergy Services, Inc.
Docket No. ER07-682....................  Entergy Services, Inc.
Docket No. ER07-956....................  Entergy Services, Inc.
Docket No. ER08-1056...................  Entergy Services, Inc.
Docket No. ER09-833....................  Entergy Services, Inc.
Docket No. ER09-1224...................  Entergy Services, Inc.
Docket No. ER10-794....................  Entergy Services, Inc.
Docket No. ER10-1350...................  Entergy Services, Inc.
Docket No. ER10-1676...................  Entergy Services, Inc.
Docket No. ER10-2001...................  Entergy Arkansas, Inc.
Docket No. ER10-3357...................  Entergy Arkansas, Inc.
Docket No. ER11-2131...................  Entergy Arkansas, Inc.
Docket No. ER11-2132...................  Entergy Gulf States, Louisiana,
                                          LLC.
Docket No. ER11-2133...................  Entergy Gulf States, Louisiana,
                                          LLC.
Docket No. ER11-2134...................  Entergy Mississippi, Inc.
Docket No. ER11-2135...................  Entergy New Orleans, Inc.
Docket No. ER11-2136...................  Entergy Texas, Inc.
Docket No. ER11-3156...................  Entergy Arkansas, Inc.
Docket No. ER11-3657...................  Entergy Arkansas, Inc.
Docket No. ER12-480....................  Midwest Independent
                                          Transmission System Operator,
                                          Inc.

    These meetings are open to the public.
    For more information, contact Patrick Clarey, Office of Energy
Market Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: February 22, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-4773 Filed 2-28-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 174 (Thursday, September 8, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55698-55699]
[FR Doc No: 2011-23014]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-3335-EM; Docket ID FEMA-2011-0001]

Maryland; Amendment No. 1 to Notice of an Emergency Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of an emergency declaration for
the State of Maryland (FEMA-3335-EM), dated August 27, 2011, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: August 29, 2011.

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: The notice of an emergency declaration for
the State of Maryland is hereby amended to include the following areas
among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the
event declared an emergency by the President in his declaration of
August 27, 2011.

    The counties of Allegany, Anne Arundel, Calvert, Caroline,
Carroll, Cecil, Charles, Frederick, Harford, Howard, Montgomery,
Prince George's, St. Mary's, and Washington for emergency protective
measures (Category

B), including direct federal assistance, under the Public Assistance
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. 2011-23014 Filed 9-7-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 200 (Monday, October 17, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 64065-64069]
[FR Doc No: 2011-26763]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2007-0314; FRL-9479-9]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Oklahoma;
Interstate Transport of Pollution

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to take action on portions of State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of Oklahoma
to address Clean Air Act requirements that prohibit air emissions which
will contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with
maintenance by, any other State for the 1997 8-hour ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS or standards), the 1997 fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS and the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is basing these proposed actions on the
final determinations concluded within the Cross State Air Pollution
Rule (CSAPR or Transport Rule) and proposed determination within the
Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPR). EPA is proposing to
disapprove, or in the alternative, approve the portion of the submittal
demonstrating Oklahoma does not interfere with maintenance of the ozone
NAAQS in other states. EPA intends to finalize approval or disapproval
based on its final determination for the SNPR regarding Oklahoma for
the ozone NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to approve the portion of the
submittal demonstrating Oklahoma does not contribute significantly to
nonattainment of the ozone NAAQS in other states. Finally, EPA is
proposing to approve the portions of the submittals addressing
Oklahoma's impacts for the PM2.5 NAAQS in other states. This
action is being taken under section 110 of the CAA.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before November 16,
2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-
2007-0314, by one of the following methods:
     Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
     Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail: Mr. Guy Donaldson at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please
also send a copy by e-mail to the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section below.

     Fax: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-
L), at fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-
L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200,
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
     Hand or Courier Delivery: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air
Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross
Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Such deliveries are
accepted only between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. weekdays, and not
on legal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries
of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2007-
0314. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in
the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://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 http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://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 e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail 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.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://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 http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Planning
Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. The file will be made available by
appointment for public inspection in the Region 6 FOIA Review Room
between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. weekdays except for legal
holidays. Contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT paragraph below or Mr. Bill Deese at<PHONE_NUMBER> to make an
appointment. If possible, please make the appointment at least two
working days in advance of your visit. There will be a 15 cent per page
fee for making photocopies of documents. On the day of the visit,
please check in at the EPA Region 6 reception area at 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 700, Dallas, Texas.
    The state submittal is also available for public inspection during
official business hours, by appointment, at the Oklahoma Department of
Environmental Quality, 707 North Robinson, P.O. Box 1677, Oklahoma
City, Oklahoma 73101-1677.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl Young, Air Planning Section (6PD-
L), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite
700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.

Outline

I. Background
    A. Clean Air Act Background
    B. Oklahoma's Submittals
    C. EPA's Analysis and Actions for the Cross State Air Pollution
Rule
II. Proposed Action
    A. Disapproval or Approval of the Submittal for the Interference
With Maintenance Requirement for the 1997 Ozone NAAQS
    B. Approval of the Submittal for the Significant Contribution to
Nonattainment Requirement for the 1997 Ozone NAAQS
    C. Approval of the Submittals for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

A. Clean Air Act Background

    Section 110(a) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires each state to
develop a state implementation plan (SIP) that provides for the
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the national ambient
air quality standards (NAAQS). We establish NAAQS under section 109 of
the CAA. Currently, the NAAQS address six criteria pollutants: Carbon
monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, lead, particulate matter, and sulfur
dioxide.
    SIPs can be extensive, containing state regulations or other
enforceable measures and various types of supporting information, such
as emissions inventories, monitoring networks, and modeling
demonstrations. The ``good neighbor'' provisions in section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) require each SIP to prohibit emissions that adversely
affect another State in the ways contemplated in the statute. Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) contains four distinct requirements related to the
impacts of interstate transport. The SIP must prevent sources in the
State from emitting pollutants in amounts which will: (1) Contribute
significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in other States; (2)
interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in other States; (3) interfere
with provisions to prevent significant deterioration of air quality in
other States; or (4) interfere with efforts to protect visibility in
other States. It should be noted that this proposed rulemaking action
addresses only those portions of Oklahoma's May 1, 2007, and April 5,
2011, submittals, which address the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements
relating to significant contribution to nonattainment or interference
with maintenance in another State with respect to the 1997 ozone and
1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. At this time, EPA is not taking
action on any additional requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) or on
any other portions of Oklahoma's May 1, 2007, and April 5, 2011,
submittals.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Previously we took the following actions on the May 1, 2007,
Oklahoma submittal for the 1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS:
(1) We approved the portion demonstrating Oklahoma emissions do not
interfere with prevention of significant deterioration measures in
any other state (November 26, 2010, 75 FR 72695); (2) we proposed to
partially approve and partially disapprove the portion demonstrating
that Oklahoma emissions do not interfere with visibility protection
measures required in any other state (March 22, 2011, 76 FR 16168).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Within 3 years of our promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS,
States are required to update or revise the SIP and submit the
revisions to us for approval and incorporation into the Federally
enforceable SIP (CAA 110(a)(1)). These plans should address, among
other things the requirements of Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). In 1997, we
revised the NAAQS for ozone and particulate matter. For ozone we
established new 8-hour standards of 0.08 parts per million (62 FR
38856). For particulate matter we

established new annual average and 24-hour standards for fine
particles, using particulate matter less than 2.5 microns
(PM2.5) as the indicator (62 FR 38652). In 2006, we revised
the PM2.5 NAAQS by decreasing the level of the 24-hour
standard from 65 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\) to 35 [mu]g/
m\3\. We retained the annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 15 [mu]g/m\3\.
This action is being taken in response to the promulgation of these
NAAQS.

B. Oklahoma's Submittals

    On May 1, 2007, the State of Oklahoma submitted a SIP revision to
address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 1997
ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. On December 5, 2007, the State
submitted supplemental information.\2\ On April 5, 2011, the State
submitted a letter certifying that their SIP meets the requirements of
CAA section 110(a)(2), including 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. The submittals document the State's assessments
that Oklahoma emissions will not contribute significantly to
nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, in any other State for
the 1997 ozone, 1997 PM2.5 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
The submittals are available electronically through the http://www.regulations.gov Web site (Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2007-0314).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The supplemental information provided an assessment of
Oklahoma's impact on Kenosha County, Wisconsin, and Cook County,
Illinois. Kenosha County, Wisconsin is designated as nonattainment
for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. Cook County, Illinois is designated as
nonattainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with EPA guidance at the time and EPA's approach in the
Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), the State's May 1, 2007, submittal
focused primarily on whether emissions from Oklahoma sources
significantly contribute to nonattainment of the 1997 ozone and
PM2.5 NAAQS in other states.\3\ The State did not evaluate
whether Oklahoma emissions interfere with maintenance of these NAAQS in
other states separately from significant contribution to nonattainment
in other states. Instead, the state presumed that if Oklahoma sources
were not significantly contributing to violations of the NAAQS in other
states, then no further specific evaluation was necessary for purposes
of the interfere with maintenance element of section 110(a)(2)(D).
However, CAIR was remanded to EPA, in part because the court found that
EPA had not correctly addressed whether emissions from sources in a
state interfere with maintenance of the standards in other states.\4\
Therefore, EPA must evaluate the May 1, 2007, Oklahoma submittal in
light of the decision of the court.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ On August 15, 2006, we issued our ``Guidance for State
Implementation Plan (SIP) Submissions to Meet Current Outstanding
Obligations Under Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-Hour Ozone and
PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards''.
    \4\ For more discussion on the court remand of CAIR please see
our August 8, 2011, CSAPR (76 FR 48208).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. EPA Analyses and Actions for the Cross State Air Pollution Rule

    On August 2, 2010, we proposed the ``Cross State Air Pollution
Rule'' (CSAPR or Transport Rule) for State emissions that contribute
significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by,
downwind states for the 1997 ozone, 1997 PM2.5 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS (75 FR 45210). The proposal responded to the
court remand of CAIR in part by independently analyzing whether a
state's emissions interfere with maintenance of the 1997 ozone, 1997
PM2.5 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. We proposed to
include Oklahoma in the CSAPR for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. Our analysis
for the proposal identified Oklahoma emissions as significantly
contributing to nonattainment and interfering with maintenance of the
1997 ozone NAAQS in the Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas area. Furthermore, our
analysis in the proposed CSAPR also found that Oklahoma emissions did
not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. The comment
period for this proposed rule closed on October 1, 2010.
    In the final CSAPR, published in the Federal Register on August 8,
2011, EPA made a final determination that Oklahoma does not
significantly contribute to nonattainment and interfere with
maintenance with respect to the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in
other states (76 FR 48208). However, EPA's analysis in the final CSAPR
also demonstrated that six states, including Oklahoma, should be
required to reduce ozone-season NOx emissions to reduce ozone impacts
at certain locations identified as maintenance receptors that were not
identified in the modeling conducted for the proposal. This analysis
conducted for the final CSAPR found Oklahoma emissions interfering with
maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS in Allegan County, Michigan, but
not significantly contributing to nonattainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS
in any other state. In the proposed and final CSAPR, EPA explicitly
gave independent meaning to the ``interfere with maintenance'' prong of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) by evaluating contributions to identified
maintenance receptors that may have difficulty maintaining the NAAQS in
the future. EPA found in the final CSAPR analysis that Oklahoma
emissions contribute to maintenance problems at the Allegan County,
Michigan maintenance receptor, and absent the Allegan County
maintenance receptor Oklahoma would not be covered by the CSAPR ozone-
season program. Based on this analysis, we published a supplemental
notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPR) to implement the ozone-season NOx
program in the final CSAPR as the FIP for Oklahoma to address emissions
identified as interfering with maintenance with respect to the 1997
ozone NAAQS (July 11, 2011, 76 FR 40662). In the SNPR, EPA took comment
on whether there were errors in the Agency's application of the CSAPR
methodologies with respect to Oklahoma and the 1997 ozone NAAQS, and
did not take comment on any aspect of the final CSAPR. The comment
period for this rule closed on August 22, 2011.
    The methodology used to analyze the impact of Oklahoma emissions
with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS is described in detail in the
preamble to the final CSAPR and in the Technical Support Documents
entitled ``Air Quality Modeling Final Rule TSD'' and ``Significant
Contribution and State Emission Budgets Final Rule TSD''. These
documents can be found in the electronic docket for the CSAPR and are
available through the http://www.regulations.gov Web site (Docket No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491).
    In this notice, EPA is proposing to take action on the basis of
determinations that have been or will be made in other final agency
actions that were taken after providing a full opportunity for notice
and comment. Therefore, in this notice, EPA is taking comment only on
its conclusions that the determinations with respect to Oklahoma made
in the final CSAPR and the determination with respect to Oklahoma that
will be made in final action on the SNPR provide a basis for the
actions proposed in this notice. EPA provided an opportunity for public
comment, in the SNPR, on its proposed determination that Oklahoma
interferes with maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS because it is
linked to an ozone maintenance receptor identified in the modeling for
the final CSAPR. EPA is not taking additional comment on that proposed
determination. EPA also provided an ample opportunity to comment,
during the CSAPR rulemaking, on the determinations made

in the final CSAPR on Oklahoma's significant contribution to
nonattainment or interference with maintenance with respect to the 1997
and the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is not taking comment on these
or any other determinations made in the final CSAPR, or reopening any
aspect of CSAPR or the SNPR for public comment. EPA is also not taking
comment on any aspect of the final CSAPR, including the methodology
used to identify maintenance receptors or the methodology used to
identify Oklahoma's specific contribution or interference with
maintenance. EPA received numerous comments on the proposed CSAPR and
on the associated Notices of Data Availability, and the SNPR, and
considered, (or, in the case of the SNPR, is considering), all comments
received during the comment periods for these actions.

II. Proposed Action

    In this action, EPA is taking comment only on its conclusions that
the final CSAPR and the SNPR provide a basis for proposing: (1)
Disapproval, and in the alternative proposing approval, for the portion
of the Oklahoma SIP revision addressing the interference with
maintenance requirement for the 1997 ozone NAAQS; (2) approval of the
portion of the Oklahoma SIP revision addressing the significant
contribution to nonattainment requirements for the 1997 ozone NAAQS;
and (3) approval of the portion of the Oklahoma SIP revision that
addresses the significant contribution to nonattainment or interference
with maintenance requirements for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.

A. Disapproval or Approval of the Submittal for the Interference With
Maintenance Requirement for the 1997 Ozone NAAQS

    We are proposing to disapprove and, in the alternative, proposing
to approve the portion of the SIP revision submitted on May 1, 2007, to
address the interference with maintenance requirement for the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS. We intend that our final action (disapproval or
approval) will be based on final action for Oklahoma in the
supplemental Cross State Air Pollution rule discussed above. We intend
to disapprove this portion of the SIP revision if, in the final
supplemental CASPR rule, we finalize our determination that Oklahoma
emissions are interfering with maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS. EPA
is in the course of reviewing and preparing responses to the comments
submitted on the SNPR regarding EPA's modeling and the adjustments made
to its technical analyses for the final CSAPR. If this review
alternatively indicates that Oklahoma should not be subject to and
covered by the final supplemental rule, EPA will take final action to
approve this portion of Oklahoma's SIP revision for the transport
element of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) that Oklahoma emissions are not
interfering with maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS. As discussed
previously, we are not reopening for comment the analyses done for the
final CSAPR nor the SNPR.

B. Approval of the Submittal for the Significant Contribution to
Nonattainment Requirement for the 1997 Ozone NAAQS

    We are proposing to approve the portion of the SIP revision
submitted on May 1, 2007, to address the significant contribution to
nonattainment requirement for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Our proposal
is based on our determination concluded within the final CSAPR that
Oklahoma emissions do not contribute significantly to nonattainment of
the 1997 ozone NAAQS. As discussed previously, we are not reopening for
comment the analyses done for the final CSAPR nor the SNPR.

C. Approval of the Submittals for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS

    We are proposing to approve the portions of the SIP revisions
submitted on May 1, 2007, and April 5, 2011, to address the significant
contribution to nonattainment or interference with maintenance
requirements for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. Our proposal is based on our determination
concluded within the final Cross State Air Pollution rule that Oklahoma
emissions do not contribute significantly to nonattainment, or
interfere with maintenance for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and the
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. As discussed previously, we are not
reopening for comment the analyses done for the final CSAPR nor the
SNPR.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations and disapprove. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to act on state law
as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law.

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

    This proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993)
and is therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and
13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed action does not impose an information collection
burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq, because this proposed SIP action under section 110 of the
CAA will not in-and-of itself create any new information collection
burdens but simply approves or disapproves certain State requirements
for inclusion into the SIP. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as
defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13
CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government
of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule does not
impose any requirements or create impacts on small entities. This
proposed SIP action under section 110 of the CAA will not in-and-of
itself create any new requirements but simply approves or disapproves
certain State requirements for inclusion into the SIP. Accordingly, it
affords no opportunity for EPA to fashion for small entities less
burdensome compliance or reporting requirements or timetables or
exemptions from all or part of the rule.

The fact that the CAA prescribes that various consequences (e.g.,
emission limitations) may or will flow from this action does not mean
that EPA either can or must conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis
for this action. Therefore, this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of this
proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related
to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C.
1531-1538 for State, local, or tribal governments or the private
sector. EPA has determined that the proposed disapproval action does
not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of
$100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in
the aggregate, or to the private sector. This action proposes to
approve or disapprove pre-existing requirements under State or local
law, and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs
to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector,
result from this action.

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    This proposed action does not have federalism implications. It will
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it merely approves or
disapproves certain State requirements for inclusion into the SIP and
does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the CAA. Thus, Executive Order 13132
does not apply to this action.

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    This proposed action does not have tribal implications, as
specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP submittals EPA is proposing to approve or disapprove
would not 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. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to
this action. Consistent with EPA policy, EPA nonetheless is offering
consultation to Tribes regarding this rulemaking action. EPA will
respond to relevant comments in the final rulemaking action.

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997)
as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or
safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of
the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This
proposed action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997). This proposed SIP action under section 110 of the CAA will not
in-and-of itself create any new regulations but simply approves or
disapproves certain State requirements for inclusion into the SIP.

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

    This proposed action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C.
272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards
are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to
provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not
to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    The EPA believes that this proposed action is not subject to
requirements of Section 12(d) of NTTAA because application of those
requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA.

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

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental
justice in this proposed action. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's
role is to approve or disapprove state choices, based on the criteria
of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve or
disapprove certain State requirements for inclusion into the SIP under
section 110 of the CAA and will not in-and-of itself create any new
requirements. Accordingly, it 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.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Sulfur dioxide.

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

    Dated: October 6, 2011.
Al Armendariz,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2011-26763 Filed 10-14-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 160 (Tuesday, August 18, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50777-50779]
[FR Doc No: 2020-17981]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2020-0189; Airspace Docket No. 19-AGL-2]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of V-55, V-271, T-217, and T-265, and Revocation of V-
215 and V-450 in the Vicinity of Muskegon, MI

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Federal
airways V-55 and V-271; amends Area Navigation (RNAV) routes T-217 and
T-265; and removes VOR Federal airways V-215 and V-450 in the vicinity
of Muskegon, MI. The air traffic service (ATS) route amendments are
necessary due to the planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the
Muskegon, MI, VOR/Tactical Air Navigation (VORTAC) navigation aid
(NAVAID) which provides navigation guidance for portions of the
affected ATS routes. This VOR is being decommissioned as part of the
FAA's VOR Minimum Operational Network (MON) program.

DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC, November 5, 2020. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
Title 1 Code of Federal Regulations part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the Rules and Regulations Group, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>. The Order is also available for inspection
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For
information on the availability of FAA Order 7400.11D at NARA, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colby Abbott, Rules and Regulations
Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority as it modifies the route structure as necessary to preserve
the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the National Airspace
System.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for Docket
No. FAA-2020-0189 in the Federal Register (85 FR 16287; March 23,
2020), amending VOR Federal airways V-55 and V-271; amending RNAV
routes T-217 and T-265; and removing VOR Federal airways V-215 and V-
450 in the vicinity of Muskegon, MI. Interested parties were invited to
participate in this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on
the proposal. No comments were received.
    Subsequent to the NPRM, the FAA published a rule for Docket No.
FAA-2019-1105 in the Federal Register (85 FR 38785; June 29, 2020),
amending VOR Federal airway V-55 by removing the airway segment
overlying the Siren, WI, VOR/Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME)
between the Eau Claire, WI, VORTAC and the Siren, WI, VOR/DME. That
airway amendment, effective September 10, 2020, is included in this
rule.
    VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) and RNAV T-
routes are published in paragraph 6011 of FAA Order 7400.11D dated
August 8, 2019, and effective September 15, 2019, which is incorporated
by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The ATS routes listed in this document
will be subsequently published in the Order.

Differences From the Proposal

    The RNAV route T-215 identifier listed in the Title and in the
``Summary'' section of the NPRM was an editorial error. The correct
route identification for the proposed RNAV route amendment addressed in
the NPRM is T-217 and was correct as presented in the ``Background,''
``The Proposal,'' and the regulatory text sections. As such, the RNAV
route identifier listed in the Title and ``Summary'' section should
reflect ``T-217'' instead of ``T-215''. This editorial correction is
included in this action.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11D, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019, and effective September 15,
2019. FAA Order 7400.11D is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11D lists Class A,
B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    The FAA is amending Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 to modify VOR Federal airways V-55 and V-271, modify RNAV
routes T-217 and T-265, and remove VOR Federal airways V-215 and V-450.
The planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Muskegon, MI,
VORTAC has made this action necessary. The VOR Federal airway changes
are outlined below.
    V-55: V-55 extends between the Dayton, OH, VOR/DME and the
intersection of the Green Bay, WI, VORTAC 270[deg] and Oshkosh, WI,
VORTAC 339[deg] radials (BIPID fix); and between the Park Rapids, MN,
VOR/DME and the Bismarck, ND, VOR/DME. The airway segment between the
Pullman, MI, VOR/DME and the intersection of the Green Bay, WI, VORTAC
270[deg] and Oshkosh, WI, VORTAC 339[deg] radials (BIPID fix) is
removed. The unaffected portions of the existing airway remain as
charted.
    V-215: V-215 extends between the intersection of the Muskegon, MI,
VORTAC 208[deg] and Pullman, MI, VOR/DME 261[deg] radials (JYBEE fix)
and the Gaylord, MI, VOR/DME. The airway is removed in its entirety.
    V-271: V-271 extends between the Muskegon, MI, VORTAC and the
Escanaba, MI, VOR/DME. The airway segment between the Muskegon, MI,
VORTAC and the Manistee, MI, VOR/DME is removed. The unaffected
portions of the existing airway remain as charted.

    V-450: V-450 extends between the Escanaba, MI, VOR/DME and the
Flint, MI, VORTAC. The airway is removed in its entirety.
    The RNAV route changes are outlined below.
    T-217: T-217 extends between the Lexington, KY, VOR/DME and the
BONEE, OH, fix. The route is extended northwestward from the BONEE, OH,
fix to the GAYLE, MI, waypoint. The extension of T-217 replaces the
loss of a portion of V-450 west of the Muskegon VORTAC. Additionally,
the type of NAVAID facility listed for the Lexington, KY, route point
is corrected from ``VORTAC'' to ``VOR/DME'' and the geographic
coordinates of each route point are expressed in degrees, minutes,
seconds, and hundredths of a second.
    T-265: T-265 extends between the AHMED, IL, fix and the VEENA, WI,
fix. The existing route is extended eastward and northward so the route
begins at the JAYBE, WI, fix and ends at the PINES, MI, waypoint. The
extension of T-265 establishes enroute structure to overcome the loss
of the V-55 airway segment south of the Muskegon VORTAC and the loss of
the V-215 airway segments north of the Muskegon VORTAC. Additionally,
the geographic coordinates of each route point are expressed in
degrees, minutes, seconds, and hundredths of a second.
    The radials listed in the VOR Federal airway V-55 description below
are unchanged and stated in True degrees.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under
Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures
(44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation
of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal.
Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures
and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated,
does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action of modifying VOR Federal
airways V-55 and V-271, modifying RNAV routes T-217 and T-265, and
removing VOR Federal airways V-215 and V-450 due to the planned
decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Muskegon, MI, VORTAC NAVAID
qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental
Policy Act and its implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 1500, and in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures, paragraph 5-6.5a, which categorically excludes from further
environmental impact review rulemaking actions that designate or modify
classes of airspace areas, airways, routes, and reporting points (see
14 CFR part 71, Designation of Class A, B, C, D, and E Airspace Areas;
Air Traffic Service Routes; and Reporting Points). As such, this action
is not expected to result in any potentially significant environmental
impacts. In accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, paragraph 5-2 regarding
Extraordinary Circumstances, the FAA has reviewed this action for
factors and circumstances in which a normally categorically excluded
action may have a significant environmental impact requiring further
analysis. The FAA has determined that no extraordinary circumstances
exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment or
environmental impact study.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11D,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 8, 2019 and
effective September 15, 2019, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6010(a) Domestic VOR Federal Airways.

* * * * *

V-55 [Amended]

    From Dayton, OH; Fort Wayne, IN; Goshen, IN; Gipper, MI; Keeler,
MI; to Pullman, MI. From Park Rapids, MN; Grand Forks, ND; INT Grand
Forks 239[deg] and Bismarck, ND, 067[deg] radials; to Bismarck.
* * * * *

V-215 [Removed]

* * * * *

V-271 [Amended]

    From Manistee, MI; to Escanaba, MI.
* * * * *

V-450 [Removed]

* * * * *

6011. United States Area Navigation Routes.

* * * * *

T-217 Lexington, KY (HYK) to Gayle, MI [Amended]

Lexington, KY (HYK)              VOR/DME            (Lat. 37[deg]57'58.86'' N, long. 084[deg]28'21.06'' W)
BOSTR, OH                        FIX                (Lat. 38[deg]53'08.13'' N, long. 084[deg]04'58.02'' W)
HEDEN, OH                        FIX                (Lat. 39[deg]16'44.88'' N, long. 084[deg]02'02.37'' W)
PRUDE, OH                        FIX                (Lat. 39[deg]25'44.92'' N, long. 083[deg]56'58.60'' W)
Springfield, OH (SGH)            DME                (Lat. 39[deg]50'11.55'' N, long. 083[deg]50'41.84'' W)
BONEE, OH                        FIX                (Lat. 40[deg]03'08.85'' N, long. 083[deg]56'56.15'' W)
SJAAY, IN                        WP                 (Lat. 40[deg]58'44.05'' N, long. 085[deg]11'17.17'' W)
DERRF, IN                        WP                 (Lat. 41[deg]39'56.73'' N, long. 085[deg]23'58.59'' W)
GETCH, MI                        WP                 (Lat. 43[deg]10'07.15'' N, long. 086[deg]03'03.06'' W)
GAYLE, MI                        WP                 (Lat. 43[deg]29'37.62'' N, long. 087[deg]00'13.08'' W)

                                                  * * * * * * *
T-265 Jaybe, WI to Pines, MI [Amended]

JAYBE, WI                        FIX                (Lat. 42[deg]38'39.36'' N, long. 088[deg]38'19.60'' W)
GRIFT, IL                        WP                 (Lat. 42[deg]17'28.14'' N, long. 088[deg]53'41.42'' W)
START, IL                        WP                 (Lat. 41[deg]45'24.83'' N, long. 089[deg]00'21.81'' W)
MEITZ, IL                        FIX                (Lat. 41[deg]23'30.87'' N, long. 088[deg]38'53.19'' W)

COYAP, IL                        WP                 (Lat. 41[deg]13'26.93'' N, long. 087[deg]41'20.30'' W)
MAPPS, IN                        WP                 (Lat. 41[deg]10'53.94'' N, long. 086[deg]56'32.63'' W)
KLROY, IN                        WP                 (Lat. 41[deg]19'19.37'' N, long. 086[deg]38'57.44'' W)
SMUUV, MI                        WP                 (Lat. 42[deg]27'58.77'' N, long. 086[deg]07'38.37'' W)
GETCH, MI                        WP                 (Lat. 43[deg]10'07.15'' N, long. 086[deg]03'03.06'' W)
LADIN, MI                        WP                 (Lat. 44[deg]22'25.44'' N, long. 085[deg]09'38.61'' W)
CARGA, MI                        WP                 (Lat. 44[deg]38'28.29'' N, long. 084[deg]58'15.15'' W)
BUDHA, MI                        WP                 (Lat. 44[deg]58'24.33'' N, long. 084[deg]45'23.22'' W)
RONDO, MI                        WP                 (Lat. 45[deg]16'43.24'' N, long. 084[deg]31'06.32'' W)
PINES, MI                        WP                 (Lat. 46[deg]01'49.61'' N, long. 084[deg]29'12.25'' W)

* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on August 12, 2020.
Scott M. Rosenbloom,
Acting Manager, Rules and Regulations Group.
[FR Doc. 2020-17981 Filed 8-17-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P