[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 85 (Monday, May 4, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25347-25350]
[FR Doc No: 2015-10311]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-74824; File No. SR-NYSEARCA-2015-29]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE Arca, Inc.; Notice of Filing
of Proposed Rule Change to Amend NYSE Arca Rules 3.1 and 3.3 and
Section 4.01(a) of the Exchange's Bylaws to Establish a Regulatory
Oversight Committee as a Committee of the Board of Directors of the
Exchange

April 28, 2015.
    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 April 17, 2015, NYSE Arca, Inc. (the ``Exchange'' or ``NYSE Arca'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC'' or
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I, II,
and III below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend NYSE Arca Rules 3.1 and 3.3 and
section 4.01(a) of the Exchange's Bylaws to establish a Regulatory
Oversight Committee (``ROC'') as a committee of the board of directors
of the Exchange (the ``Board''). The text of the proposed rule change
is available on the Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the
principal office of the Exchange, 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 self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared
summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most
significant parts of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to establish a ROC as a committee of the
Board with the responsibility to independently monitor the Exchange's
regulatory operations.\3\ To effectuate this change, the Exchange
proposes to amend NYSE Arca Rules 3.1 and 3.3 and Section 4.01(a) of
the Bylaws of the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ NYSE Regulation, Inc. (``NYSE Regulation''), a not-for-
profit subsidiary of the Exchange's affiliate New York Stock
Exchange LLC (``NYSE''), performs all of the Exchange's regulatory
functions pursuant to an intercompany Regulatory Services Agreement
(``RSA'') that gives the Exchange the contractual right to review
NYSE Regulation's performance. NYSE Regulation performs regulatory
functions for the Exchange's affiliate NYSE MKT LLC (``NYSE MKT'')
pursuant to a similar intercompany RSA. NYSE MKT has submitted a
similar proposal to establish a ROC with primary responsibility for
overseeing regulatory operations. See SR-NYSEMKT-2015-27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 3.1(a) provides the Board with authority to establish one or
more committees consisting of one or more

directors of the Exchange (each, a ``Board Committee''). Rule 3.3
specifies existing Board Committees. The Exchange proposes to amend
Rule 3.3 to provide for a ROC and delineate its composition and
functions. The proposed new rule text would be substantially similar to
Article III, section 5(c) of the By-Laws of the NASDAQ Stock Market LLC
(``Committees Composed Solely of Directors'') \4\ and Article V,
section 6(c) of the Third Amended and Restated Bylaws of BATS Exchange,
Inc. (``BATS'') (``BATS Bylaws'').\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-53128 (January
13, 2006), 71 FR 3550 (January 23, 2006) (File No. 10-131)
(``Release No. 34-53128'') (order granting application of NASDAQ
Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'') for registration as a national
securities exchange). As noted below, members of the NASDAQ ROC must
satisfy both NASDAQ's public director and independent director
requirements.
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-58375 (August 18,
2008), 73 FR 49498, 49502 (August 21, 2008) (File No. 10-182)
(``Release No. 34-58375'') (approving BATS' application seeking
registration as a national securities exchange).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, proposed Rule 3.3(a)(2)(A) would provide that the
Board shall appoint a ROC on an annual basis. Proposed Rule
3.3(a)(2)(B) would describe the composition of the ROC. The Exchange
proposes that the ROC would consist of at least three members, each of
whom would be a public director of the Exchange or a director of NYSE
Regulation who satisfies the public director requirements set forth in
section 3.02(a) of the Bylaws of the Exchange.\6\ The Exchange believes
that the requirement for ROC members to be public directors ensures the
independence of these members. The Exchange further believes that a ROC
comprised of at least three members is appropriate. The size and
composition of the proposed ROC would be largely the same as that of
the ROCs of other self-regulatory organizations (``SROs''),\7\ with the
exception of the possibility to include directors of NYSE Regulation
who meet the public director requirements.\8\ A ROC with at least three
members satisfying the exchange's independence requirements has been
recognized as one of several measures that can help ensure the
independence of the regulatory function from the market operations and
commercial interests of a national securities exchange.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Article III, section 3.02(a) of the Exchange's Bylaws
requires that at least 50% of the Exchange's directors be public
directors, defined as ``persons from the public and [who] will not
be, or be affiliated with, a broker-dealer in securities or employed
by, or involved in any material business relationship with, the
Exchange or its affiliates.'' The Exchange believes that the Bylaw
requirements for ``public directors'' establish the Exchange's
criteria for director independence, and therefore serve the same
purpose as the NYSE and NYSE MKT Independence Policies. See
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 67564 (August 1, 2012), 77 FR
47161 (August 7, 2012) (SR-NYSE- 2012-17; SR-NYSEArca-2012-59; SR-
NYSEMKT-2012-07) (approving NYSE's and NYSE MKT's director
independence policy). See also Release No. 34-53128, 71 FR at 3553
(the Commission has recognized that ``public directors can provide
unique, unbiased perspectives'' that can ``enhance'' a board's
ability ``to address issues in a non-discriminatory fashion and
foster the integrity'' of the Exchange).
    \7\ See e.g., NASDAQ By-laws, Article III, section 5(c)
(``NASDAQ Bylaws'') (specifying a ROC comprising three directors who
must satisfy both NASDAQ's public director and independent director
requirements); Third Amended and Restated Bylaws of BATS Exchange,
Inc. (``BATS''), Article V, section 6(c) (``BATS Bylaws'')
(specifying a ROC comprising three non-industry (i.e., public)
directors); and Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated
(``CBOE'') Bylaws, Article IV, section 4.5 (specifying a ROC of at
least three directors all of whom shall be ``non-industry''
directors).
    \8\ The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 3.1(a) to permit the
appointment of NYSE Regulation directors to the ROC by amending the
rule to provide that board committees ``may'' consist ``partly or
entirely'' of Exchange directors instead of the current requirement
that committees consist of ``one or more'' Exchange directors.
    \9\ See, e.g., Release No. 34-53128, 71 FR at 3555 (NASDAQ);
Release No. 34-58375, 73 FR at 49502 (BATS); Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 34-61152 (December 10, 2009), 74 FR 66699, 66704-705
(December 16, 2009) (File No. 10-191) (approving application of C2
Options Exchange, Incorporated, seeking registration as a national
securities exchange); and Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-
61698 (March 10 [sic], 2010), 75 FR 13151, 13161 (March 12 [sic],
2010) (``Release No. 34-61698'') (approving application of EDGX
Exchange, Inc. and EDGA Exchange, Inc., seeking registration as a
national securities exchange).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Further, proposed Rule 3.3(a)(2)(B) would provide that the Board
may, on affirmative vote of a majority of directors, at any time remove
any member of the ROC for cause. Proposed Rule 3.3(a)(2)(B) would also
provide that a failure of the member to qualify as a public director
shall constitute a basis to remove a member of the ROC for cause.
Similar authority is found in the bylaws governing the ROCs of other
SROs.\10\ Finally, proposed Rule 3.3(a)(2)(B) would provide that, if
the term of office of a ROC committee member terminates under this
section, and the remaining term of office of such committee member at
the time of termination is not more than three months, during the
period of vacancy the ROC would not be deemed to be in violation of its
compositional requirements by virtue of the vacancy. Once again, this
is consistent with the rules and bylaws of other SROs.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See e.g., BATS Bylaws, Article V, section 2(a) (``the
Chairman may, at any time, with or without cause, remove any member
of a committee so appointed, with the approval of the Board.'');
Second Amended and Restated By-laws of National Stock Exchange,
Inc., Article V, section 5.2 (same).
    \11\ See e.g., NASDAQ Bylaws, Article III, Section 2(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Rule 3.3(a)(2)(C) would describe the functions and
authority of the proposed ROC. The proposed ROC's responsibilities
would be to:
     Oversee the Exchange's regulatory and self-regulatory
organization responsibilities and evaluate the adequacy and
effectiveness of the Exchange's regulatory and self-regulatory
organization responsibilities;
     assess the Exchange's regulatory performance; and
     advise and make recommendations to the Board or other
committees of the Board about the Exchange's regulatory compliance,
effectiveness and plans.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ These three core responsibilities of the proposed ROC would
be substantially similar to those of other SROs' ROCs. See, e.g.,
NASDAQ Bylaws, Article III, section 5; Release No. 34-58375, 73 FR
at 49502 (BATS); Release No. 34-61698, 75 FR at 13161 (EDGX
Exchange, Inc. and EDGA Exchange, Inc.); and Amended and Restated
By-Laws of Miami International Securities Exchange, LLC, Article IV,
section 4.5(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In furtherance of these functions, the proposed rule would provide
the ROC with the authority and obligation to review the regulatory
budget of the Exchange and specifically inquire into the adequacy of
resources available in the budget for regulatory activities. Moreover,
under the proposed rule, the ROC would be charged with meeting
regularly with the Chief Regulatory Officer (``CRO'') in executive
session and, in consultation with the Exchange's Chief Executive
Officer, establishing the goals, assessing the performance, and
recommending the CRO's compensation. Finally, under the proposed rule,
the ROC would be responsible for keeping the Board informed with
respect to the foregoing matters.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The obligations of the proposed ROC would be substantially
similar to those of other SROs' ROCs. See, e.g., NASDAQ Bylaws,
Article III, section 5; Bylaws of NASDAQ OMX PHLX LLC, Article V,
Section 5-2; Third Amended and Restated Bylaws of BATS-Exchange,
Inc., Article V, Section 6(c).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, the Exchange proposes to amend Article IV, section 4.01 of
its Bylaws governing board committees. Specifically, the Exchange
proposes to add references to the proposed ROC to subsection (a) of
Section 4.01. Further, the Exchange proposes to add ``Except as
otherwise provided in the Rules'' to the clause in section 4.01(a) that
requires each board committee to be comprised of at least 50% public
directors because, under the proposed changes to Rules 3.1 and 3.3, the
ROC may include directors of NYSE Regulation. Lastly, the Exchange
proposes to add text to section 4.01(a)

providing that vacancies in the membership of any committee would be
filled by the Exchange Board, which is consistent with proposed Rule
3.3 and the same as other SROs.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See Second Amended Limited Liability Company Agreement of
the NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, Section 9(g).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated above, the Exchange proposes that members of the ROC
could be either public directors of the Exchange Board or directors of
NYSE Regulation who satisfy the public director requirements, thereby
ensuring that the ROC would be comprised of independent members.\15\
The proposed eligibility of qualifying directors of the NYSE Regulation
board for the ROC would allow individuals to be members of the ROC who
have direct experience in overseeing the adequacy and effectiveness of
the Exchange's and its affiliates' regulatory programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See note 7 and accompanying text supra.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change creating an
independent board committee to oversee the adequacy and effectiveness
of the performance of its self-regulatory responsibilities is
consistent with previously approved rule changes for other self-
regulatory organizations and would enable the Exchange to harmonize its
corporate governance with that of its industry peers.\16\ Moreover, the
Exchange believes that the proposed adoption of a ROC would ensure the
continued independence of the regulatory process.\17\ The fundamental
hallmarks of regulatory independence--determinations regarding the
Exchange's regulatory plan, programs, budget and staffing made by
individuals independent of Exchange management and a CRO having general
supervision of the regulatory operations of the Exchange and reporting
to a ROC--are integral to the proposal.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See NASDAQ Bylaws, Article III, section 5(c); BATS Bylaws,
Article V, section 6(c).
    \17\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-48946
(December 17, 2003), 68 FR 74678, 74687 (August 21, 2008 [sic]) (SR-
NYSE-2003-34).
    \18\ See, e.g., Release No. 34-53128, 71 FR at 3555. Prior to
2010, the Exchange's rules and Bylaws provided for a ROC composed
entirely of public directors that was responsible for ensuring (i)
the independence of Exchange regulation; (ii) adequate resources for
the Exchange to properly fulfill its self-regulatory obligations;
and (iii) that Exchange management fully supported the execution of
the regulatory process. See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 34-
62304 (June 16, 2010), 75 FR 36136, 36138 (May 6, 2010) (SR-
NYSEArca-2010-31). In 2010, in order to align corporate practices
with its affiliates NYSE and NYSE MKT, the Exchange transferred
oversight of the Exchange's regulatory activities to the board of
directors of NYSE Regulation and eliminated the ROC. See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with section 6(b) of the Exchange Act \19\ in general, and with section
6(b)(1) \20\ in particular, in that it enables the Exchange to be so
organized as to have the capacity to be able to carry out the purposes
of the Exchange Act and to comply, and to enforce compliance by its
exchange members and persons associated with its exchange members, with
the provisions of the Exchange Act, the rules and regulations
thereunder, and the rules of the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed change would create an independent board committee to
oversee the adequacy and effectiveness of the performance of the
Exchange's self-regulatory responsibilities. The proposed ROC, similar
in composition and functions to the approved ROCs of other SROs, would
be designed to oversee the Exchange's regulatory and self-regulatory
organization responsibilities and evaluate the adequacy and
effectiveness of the Exchange's regulatory and self-regulatory
organization responsibilities; assess the Exchange's regulatory
performance; and advise and make recommendations to the Board or other
committees of the Board about the Exchange's regulatory compliance,
effectiveness and plans.
    As noted, the Exchange proposes that members of the ROC could be
either public directors of the Exchange Board or directors of NYSE
Regulation who satisfy the public director requirements, thereby
ensuring that the ROC would be comprised of independent members. The
Exchange believes that proposing to allow directors of NYSE Regulation
who satisfy the public director requirements to be eligible for the ROC
would provide the choice to include these individuals who have direct
experience in overseeing the adequacy and effectiveness of the
Exchange's and its affiliates' regulatory programs. Accordingly, the
Exchange believes that the proposed amendment would contribute to the
orderly operation of the Exchange and would enable the Exchange to be
so organized as to have the capacity to carry out the purposes of the
Exchange Act and comply and enforce compliance by its members and
persons associated with its members with the provisions of the Exchange
Act. The Exchange therefore believes that approval of the proposed
amendment to the Bylaws is consistent with section 6(b)(1).
    The Exchange also believes that this filing furthers the objectives
of section 6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act \21\ because the proposed rule
change would be consistent with and facilitate a governance and
regulatory structure that is designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to foster cooperation and coordination with
persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling, processing
information with respect to, and facilitating transactions in
securities, to remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of a
free and open market and a national market system and, in general, to
protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed above, the Exchange believes that the proposed
creation of a ROC composed of public directors of the Exchange Board or
directors of NYSE Regulation who satisfy the public director
requirements would align the Exchange's corporate governance practices
with other SROs that have adopted a ROC to monitor the adequacy and
effectiveness of the regulatory program, assess regulatory performance,
and assist the Board in reviewing the regulatory plan and the overall
effectiveness of the regulatory function. Moreover, the Exchange
believes that the proposed ROC structure would also sufficiently
``insulate'' the regulatory functions from the Exchange's ``market and
other commercial interests'' in order for the Exchange to carry out its
regulatory obligations.\22\ The Exchange believes that the proposed
rule change is therefore consistent with and facilitates a governance
and regulatory structure that furthers the objectives of section
6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act. The independent oversight of the
Exchange's regulatory functions by the proposed ROC is also designed to
protect investors as well as the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Release No. 34-53128, 71 FR at 3556.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act. The proposed rule
change is not intended to address competitive issues but rather is
concerned solely with the administration and functioning of the
Exchange's Board.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or up to 90 days (i) as the Commission may designate
if it finds such longer period to be appropriate and publishes its
reasons for so finding or (ii) as to which the self-regulatory
organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
    (B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEARCA-2015-29 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-NYSEARCA-2015-29.
This file number should be included on the subject line if email is
used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments,
all written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that
are filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating
to the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person,
other than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance
with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site
viewing and printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the
hours of 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be
available for inspection and copying at the principal 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-
NYSEARCA-2015-29, and should be submitted on or before May 26, 2015.
    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

Brent J. Fields,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2015-10311 Filed 5-1-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 29 (Tuesday, February 12, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3338-3340]
[FR Doc No: 2019-02015]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

44 CFR Part 64

[Docket ID FEMA-2018-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-8567]

Suspension of Community Eligibility

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This rule identifies communities where the sale of flood
insurance has been authorized under the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP) that are scheduled for suspension on the effective dates
listed within this rule because of noncompliance with the floodplain
management requirements of the program. If the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) receives documentation that the community has
adopted the required floodplain management measures prior to the
effective suspension date given in this rule, the suspension will not
occur and notification of this will be provided by publication in the
Federal Register on a subsequent date. Also, information identifying
the current participation status of a community can be obtained from
FEMA's Community Status Book (CSB). The CSB is available at https://www.fema.gov/national-flood-insurance-program-community-status-book.

DATES: The effective date of each community's scheduled suspension is
the third date (``Susp.'') listed in the third column of the following
tables.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you want to determine whether a
particular community was suspended on the suspension date or for
further information, contact Adrienne L. Sheldon, PE, CFM, Federal
Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NFIP enables property owners to purchase
Federal flood insurance that is not otherwise generally available from
private insurers. In return, communities agree to adopt and administer
local floodplain management measures aimed at protecting lives and new
construction from future flooding. Section 1315 of the National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits the sale
of NFIP flood insurance unless an appropriate public body adopts
adequate floodplain management measures with effective enforcement
measures. The communities listed in this document no longer meet that
statutory requirement for compliance with program regulations, 44 CFR
part 59. Accordingly, the communities will be suspended on the
effective date in the third column. As of that date, flood insurance
will no longer be available in the community. We recognize that some of
these communities may adopt and submit the required documentation of
legally enforceable floodplain management measures after this rule is
published but prior to the actual suspension date. These communities
will not be suspended and will continue to be eligible for the sale of
NFIP flood insurance. A notice withdrawing the suspension of such
communities will be published in the Federal Register.
    In addition, FEMA publishes a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) that
identifies the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in these communities.
The date of the FIRM, if one has been published, is indicated in the
fourth column of the table. No direct Federal financial assistance
(except assistance pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief
and Emergency Assistance Act not in connection with a flood) may be
provided for construction or acquisition of buildings in identified
SFHAs for communities not participating in the NFIP and identified for
more than a year on FEMA's initial FIRM for the community as having
flood-prone areas (section 202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act
of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This prohibition against
certain types of Federal assistance becomes effective for the
communities listed on the date shown in the last column. The
Administrator finds that notice and public comment procedures under 5
U.S.C. 553(b), are impracticable and unnecessary because communities
listed in this final rule have been adequately notified.
    Each community receives 6-month, 90-day, and 30-day notification
letters addressed to the Chief Executive Officer stating that the
community will be suspended unless the required floodplain management
measures are met prior to the effective suspension date. Since these
notifications were made, this final rule may take effect within less
than 30 days.
    National Environmental Policy Act. FEMA has determined that the
community suspension(s) included in this rule is a non-discretionary
action and therefore the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42
U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) does not apply.
    Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Administrator has determined that
this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act because the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended,
Section 1315, 42 U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance coverage unless
an appropriate public body adopts adequate floodplain management
measures with effective enforcement measures. The communities listed no
longer comply with the statutory requirements, and after the effective
date, flood insurance will no longer be available in the communities
unless remedial action takes place.
    Regulatory Classification. This final rule is not a significant
regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR
51735.
    Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This rule involves no policies
that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132.
    Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule meets the
applicable standards of Executive Order 12988.
    Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule does not involve any collection
of information for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 64

    Flood insurance, Floodplains.

    Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is amended as follows:

PART 64--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for Part 64 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp.; p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR,
1979 Comp.; p. 376.

Sec.  64.6  [Amended]

0
2. The tables published under the authority of Sec.  64.6 are amended
as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Effective date
                                                authorization/
                                  Community     cancellation of    Current effective map   Date certain Federal
      State and location             No.         sale of flood             date            assistance no longer
                                                 insurance in                               available in SFHAs
                                                   community
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Region IV
Mississippi:
    Aberdeen, City of, Monroe         280115  January 31, 1974,   Feb. 15, 2019.........  Feb. 15, 2019.
     County.                                   Emerg; February
                                               1, 1978, Reg;
                                               February 15,
                                               2019, Susp.
    Amory, City of, Monroe            280116  December 19, 1973,  ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; April 17,
                                               1978, Reg;
                                               February 15,
                                               2019, Susp.
    Fulton, City of, Itawamba         280081  September 6, 1974,  ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; September
                                               4, 1985, Reg;
                                               February 15,
                                               2019, Susp.
    Itawamba County,                  280290  N/A, Emerg; March   ......do..............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                     12, 1996, Reg;
                                               February 15,
                                               2019, Susp.
    Mantachie, Town of,               280082  May 27, 1975,       ......do..............   Do.
     Itawamba County.                          Emerg; September
                                               18, 1985, Reg;
                                               February 15,
                                               2019, Susp.
    Monroe County,                    280275  February 28, 1979,  ......do..............   Do.
     Unincorporated Areas.                     Emerg; March 16,
                                               1988, Reg;
                                               February 15,
                                               2019, Susp.

    Smithville, Town of,              280325  March 16, 1988,     ......do..............   Do.
     Monroe County.                            Emerg; March 16,
                                               1988, Reg;
                                               February 15,
                                               2019, Susp.
           Region V
Illinois:
    Beecher, Village of, Will         170696  December 12, 1974,  ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; October
                                               15, 1982, Reg;
                                               February 15,
                                               2019, Susp.
    Bolingbrook, Village of,          170812  June 28, 1974,      ......do..............   Do.
     DuPage and Will Counties.                 Emerg; October
                                               15, 1980, Reg;
                                               February 15,
                                               2019, Susp.
    Braidwood, City of, Will          170848  March 20, 1991,     ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; December
                                               1, 1992, Reg;
                                               February 15,
                                               2019, Susp.
    Coal City, Village of,            170258  April 23, 1975,     ......do..............   Do.
     Grundy and Will Counties.                 Emerg; May 25,
                                               1978, Reg;
                                               February 15,
                                               2019, Susp.
    Crest Hill, City of, Will         170699  August 5, 1974,     ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; July 16,
                                               1979, Reg;
                                               February 15,
                                               2019, Susp.
    Crete, Village of, Will           170700  May 21, 1975,       ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; March 2,
                                               1981, Reg;
                                               February 15,
                                               2019, Susp.
    Homer Glen, Village of,           171080  N/A, Emerg;         ......do..............   Do.
     Cook and Will Counties.                   September 6,
                                               2002, Reg;
                                               February 15,
                                               2019, Susp.
    Joliet, City of, Kendall          170702  April 13, 1973,     ......do..............   Do.
     and Will Counties.                        Emerg; February
                                               4, 1981, Reg;
                                               February 15,
                                               2019, Susp.
    Lemont, Village of, Cook,         170117  March 6, 1975,      ......do..............   Do.
     DuPage and Will Counties.                 Emerg; June 30,
                                               1976, Reg;
                                               February 15,
                                               2019, Susp.
    Manhattan, Village of,            170704  June 12, 1975,      ......do..............   Do.
     Will County.                              Emerg; October
                                               15, 1982, Reg;
                                               February 15,
                                               2019, Susp.
    Minooka, Village of,              171019  N/A, Emerg; March   ......do..............   Do.
     Grundy, Kendall and Will                  12, 1992, Reg;
     Counties.                                 February 15,
                                               2019, Susp.
    Mokena, Village of, Will          170705  June 12, 1974,      ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; August 1,
                                               1979, Reg;
                                               February 15,
                                               2019, Susp.
    New Lenox, Village of,            170706  September 19,       ......do..............   Do.
     Will County.                              1974, Emerg; May
                                               1, 1980, Reg;
                                               February 15,
                                               2019, Susp.
    Orland Park, Village of,          170140  April 15, 1974,     ......do..............   Do.
     Cook and Will Counties.                   Emerg; February
                                               4, 1981, Reg;
                                               February 15,
                                               2019, Susp.
    Plainfield, Village of,           170771  May 21, 1975,       ......do..............   Do.
     Kendall and Will Counties.                Emerg; November
                                               17, 1982, Reg;
                                               February 15,
                                               2019, Susp.
    Rockdale, Village of, Will        170710  May 27, 1975,       ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; September
                                               15, 1983, Reg;
                                               February 15,
                                               2019, Susp.
    Romeoville, Village of,           170711  July 2, 1975,       ......do..............   Do.
     Will County.                              Emerg; November
                                               3, 1982, Reg;
                                               February 15,
                                               2019, Susp.
    Sauk Village, Village of,         170157  April 30, 1974,     ......do..............   Do.
     Cook and Will Counties.                   Emerg; May 5,
                                               1981, Reg;
                                               February 15,
                                               2019, Susp.
    Shorewood, Village of,            170712  May 15, 1974,       ......do..............   Do.
     Will County.                              Emerg; November
                                               1, 1979, Reg;
                                               February 15,
                                               2019, Susp.
    Steger, Village of, Cook          170713  March 7, 1975,      ......do..............   Do.
     and Will Counties.                        Emerg; February
                                               18, 1983, Reg;
                                               February 15,
                                               2019, Susp.
    Tinley Park, Village of,          170169  July 25, 1974,      ......do..............   Do.
     Cook and Will Counties.                   Emerg; December
                                               4, 1979, Reg;
                                               February 15,
                                               2019, Susp.
    University Park, Village          170708  September 24,       ......do..............   Do.
     of, Cook and Will                         1974, Emerg; July
     Counties.                                 16, 1980, Reg;
                                               February 15,
                                               2019, Susp.
    Wilmington, City of, Will         170715  August 7, 1974,     ......do..............   Do.
     County.                                   Emerg; July 16,
                                               1981, Reg;
                                               February 15,
                                               2019, Susp.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*-do- =Ditto.
Code for reading third column: Emerg.--Emergency; Reg.--Regular; Susp.--Suspension.

    Dated: February 1, 2019.
Katherine B. Fox,
Assistant Administrator for Mitigation, Federal Insurance and
Mitigation Administration--FEMA Resilience, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2019-02015 Filed 2-11-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


Task Force February 12, 2003 Mr. Wardner C. Penberthy Director, Chemical Control Division U. S. EPA OPPTS { 7405M] 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. N. W. WashingtonDC 20460 P. O. Box 331, Mil~ wood, VA 22646 ( 540) 837 1602 RE: Consent Agreement for Ethylene Dichloride Dear Mr. Penberthy:

I have initialed the correction on the enclosed page 6 ofthe ECA for ethylene dichioride regarding " Gargas et al. ( 1987; 1988)" to DiSouza et al. ( 1987; 1988)" as requested. Also, minor additions were made to Appendix C of the ECA that included a reaction diagram and a reference list. These additions have been provided to John Schaeffer.

Enclosure cc: John Schaeffer ( w/ o end.) Rich Leukroth ( w/ o end.) Caffey Norman ( w/ o end.) Yours truly,

Peter Voytek, PhD HAP Task Force Manager RECEIVED OPPT NCIC 2003 MAR11 5: 03PM OPPT 2003 0010 0018 VI. DESCRIPTION OF THE TESTING PROGRAM The testing program has four segments as follows: Tier I HAPs Testing; Tier I Program Review Testing; EPA Program Review; and Tier II Testing.

A. Tier I HAPs Testing: This testing will consist of the following endpoint testing, conducted by inhalation exposure, that EPA has deemed necessary to meet certain data needs identified in the proposed HAPs test rule, as amended: I) acute toxicity testing with BAL and histopathology, and 2) acute neurotoxicity testing. EPA will not finalize the testing requirements for these Tier I HAPs Testing endpoints for ethylene dichloride as specified in the proposed HAPs test rule, as amended, because such testing will be conducted under this ECA. Furthermore, EPA considers the existing study by Sherwood et at. ( 1987), adequate to fulfill the macrophage function assay portion of the acute toxicity testing requirement ( see Appendix E. 1). In addition, EPA considers the existing studies by Rao et at. ( 1980) and Payan et at. ( 1995), adequate to characterize the developmental toxicity of ethylene dichioride under the proposed HAPs rulemaking, as amended ( see Appendix E. 3). Thus, EPA will not finalize the testing requirements for the developmental toxicity and macrophage function assay Tier I HAPs testing endpoints for EDC as specified in the HAPs proposed rule as amended, because available studies are acceptable for HAPs purposes. Tier 1 testing for acute toxicity and acute neurotoxicity and the extant data for macrophage function assay and developmental toxicity testing are specified in the ` Tier I HAPs Testing' segment of Table 1 and described in Appendix B( 1,2) as annotated in Appendix D( 1), and Appendix E( 1,3).

B. Tier I Program Review Testing: This testing, specified in the " Tier I Program Review Testing" segment of Table 1 and described in Appendix C. 1, will develop PK/ MECH data needed to inform about the acceptability of an alternate route to inhalation for Tier II testing. It will also develop and validate the dosimetry model of ~ a~ gaset at. ( 1987; 1988) in rats and verify the ability of the model to perform quantitative route to route extrapolations, as described in Appendix C( 2 5) and as will be reported following guidance provided in Appendix C. 6. Data from this testing will be the subject of discussions at the EPA Program Review. While EPA believes that it is best to obtain this type of PK/ MECH data in conjunction with the testing specified in the Tier I HAPs Testing ( see Part VI. A.), these PKIMECH data may also be obtained independently from stand alone studies. Specifically, the PKJMECH data will support: 1) oral to inhalation extrapolation of existing subchronic toxicity data in rats administered ethylene dichloride via corn oil gavage ( Daniel et at., 1994)( see Appendix E. 2); 2) oral toinhalation extrapolation of subchronic neurotoxicity data in rats administered ethylene dichloride via drinking water ( see Tier H testing); and 3) oral to inhalation extrapolation of reproductive toxicity data in rats administered ethylene dichloride via drinking water ( see Tier II testing) and each dosing paradigm of existing reproductive toxicity studies by Alumot et al. ( 1976), Rao et at. ( 1980), and Lane et at. ( l982)( see Appendix E. 4). The PKJMECH data will also support model simulations to demonstrate validation and verification of PBPK models for route to route extrapolation in order to evaluate acceptability of oral drinking water exposure in rats in the Tier II testing for subchronic neurotoxicity and reproductive toxicity.

6


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 107 (Tuesday, June 6, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25992-25996]
[FR Doc No: 2017-11686]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2017-0216; FRL-9963-42-Region 8]

Attainment Date Extensions for the Logan, Utah-Idaho 24-Hour Fine
Particulate Matter Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
grant two, one-year extensions to the Moderate attainment date for the
2006 24-hour fine particulate matter (PM2.5) Logan, Utah
(UT)-Idaho (ID) nonattainment area. This action is based on the EPA's
evaluation of air quality monitoring data and extension requests
submitted by the State of Utah on May 2, 2017, and the State of Idaho
on December 15, 2015, February 26, 2016, and April 25, 2017. The EPA is
proposing to grant a one-year extension of the Moderate attainment date
from December 31, 2015 to December 31, 2016, and is proposing to grant
a second one-year extension of the Moderate attainment date from
December 31, 2016 to December 31, 2017, in accordance with section
188(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before July 6, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2017-0216 at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from www.regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to the public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information, the disclosure of which is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Crystal Ostigaard, Air Program, EPA,
Region 8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-
1129,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

    a. Submitting CBI. Do not submit CBI to the EPA through
www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD-ROM that you mail to the EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM
as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    b. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. 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--The agency 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 deadline
identified.

II. Background

A. Designation and Classification of PM2.5 Nonattainment
Areas

    On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), the EPA revised the level of the
24-hour PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS),
lowering the primary and secondary standards from the 1997 standard of
65 micrograms per cubic meter ([micro]g/m\3\) to 35 [micro]g/m\3\. On
November 13, 2009 (74 FR 58688), the EPA designated a number of areas
as nonattainment for the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS of 35 [micro]g/
m\3\, including the Logan, UT-ID nonattainment area. The EPA originally
designated these areas under the general provisions of CAA title I,
part D, subpart 1 (``subpart 1''), under which attainment plans must
provide for the attainment of a specific NAAQS (in this case, the 2006
PM2.5 standards) as expeditiously as practicable, but no
later than five years from the date the areas were designated
nonattainment.
    Following this designation of nonattainment for PM2.5
and consistent with EPA guidance, the State of Utah and the State of
Idaho developed PM2.5 attainment plans intended to meet the
general requirements of subpart 1. Utah and Idaho each submitted a
PM2.5 state implementation plan (SIP) for the Logan, UT-ID
nonattainment area on December 14, 2012. On May 9, 2013, Utah submitted
a SIP that contained multiple area source rules intended to reduce
emissions in the PM2.5 nonattainment areas.
    Subsequently, on January 4, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit held that the EPA should have implemented
the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 standard based on both the general
nonattainment area requirements in subpart 1 and the PM-specific
requirements of CAA title I, part D, subpart 4 (``subpart 4''). Under
subpart 4, PM nonattainment areas are initially classified as Moderate,
and Moderate area attainment plans must address the requirements of
subpart 4 as well as subpart 1. Additionally, CAA subpart 4 establishes
a different SIP submittal due date and attainment year. For a Moderate
PM2.5 nonattainment area, the attainment SIP is due no later
than 18 months after designation and the attainment year is as
expeditiously as practicable after designation but no later than the
end of the sixth calendar year after designation. On June 2, 2014 (79
FR 31566), the EPA finalized the Identification of Nonattainment
Classification and Deadlines for Submission of State Implementation
Plan (SIP) Provisions for the 1997 Fine Particulate (PM2.5)
NAAQS and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (``the Classification and
Deadlines Rule''). This rule classified the areas that were designated
in 2009 as nonattainment to Moderate, and set the attainment SIP
submittal due date for those areas at December 31, 2014. This rule did
not affect the Moderate area attainment date of December 31, 2015.
    After the court's decision, on December 16, 2014, the Utah
Department of Air Quality (UDAQ) withdrew all prior Logan, UT-ID
PM2.5 SIP submissions and submitted a new SIP to address
both the general requirements of subpart 1 and the PM-specific
requirements of subpart 4 for Moderate areas. Additionally, on December
24, 2014, the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ)
submitted a supplement to the 2012 SIP submission (``2014 amendment'')
that included additional analyses intended to meet CAA subpart 4
requirements.
    On August 24, 2016, the EPA finalized the Fine Particulate Matter
National Ambient Air Quality Standards: State Implementation Plan
Requirements (``PM2.5 Implementation Rule''), 81 FR 58010,
which addressed the January 4, 2013 court ruling. The final
implementation rule provides the EPA's interpretation of the
requirements applicable to PM2.5 nonattainment areas and
explains how air agencies can meet the statutory SIP requirements that
apply under subparts 1 and 4 to areas designated nonattainment for any
PM2.5 NAAQS, such as: General requirements for attainment
plan due dates and attainment demonstrations; provisions for
demonstrating reasonable further progress; quantitative milestones;
contingency measures; nonattainment new source review (NNSR) permitting
programs; and reasonably available control measures (RACM) (including
reasonably available control technology (RACT). The statutory
attainment planning requirements established in subparts 1 and 4 are
designed to ensure that states implement measures that provide for
attainment of the PM2.5 NAAQS as expeditiously as
practicable by requiring states to adopt feasible emissions reduction
strategies for PM2.5 and its precursors to achieve
incremental reductions leading to attainment of the PM2.5
NAAQS in nonattainment areas.

B. CAA Requirements for an Attainment Date Extension

    Under CAA section 188(d), the EPA may grant a state's request to
extend the attainment date for a Moderate area if: ``(1) the state has
complied with all requirements and commitments pertaining to the area
in the applicable implementation plan; and (2) no more than one
exceedance of the 24-hour [NAAQS] level for PM10 has
occurred in the area in the year preceding the Extension Year, and the
annual mean concentration for PM10 in the area for such year
is less than or equal to the standard level.'' The EPA cannot issue

more than two, one-year extensions for a single Moderate area.
    The PM2.5 Implementation Rule interprets section 188(d)
for PM2.5 Moderate areas. Under the regulations, the EPA may
grant an extension if the agency determines that: (1) The state has
complied with all requirements and commitments pertaining to the area
in the applicable implementation plan; and (2) for an area designated
nonattainment for the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS for which the
state seeks an attainment date extension, the 98th percentile 24-hour
concentration at each monitor in that area for the calendar year that
includes the applicable attainment date is less than or equal to the
level of the applicable 24-hour standard (calculated according to the
data analysis requirements in 40 CFR part 50, appendix N). 40 CFR
51.1005(a)(1). The applicable implementation plan is defined as the
plan submitted to meet Moderate area requirements. Id. Sec.
51.1005(a)(2). The PM2.5 Implementation Rule explains that,
to meet the first criterion, a state needs to show that it has
``submitted the necessary attainment plan for the area for the
applicable PM2.5 NAAQS and is implementing the control
measures in the submission.'' 81 FR 58070/3.
    In the absence of an attainment date extension, upon a
determination of failure to attain by the EPA, the area would be
reclassified to Serious by operation of law under CAA section
188(b)(2). If an extension to the attainment date is granted, the EPA
must determine whether the area attained the PM2.5 NAAQS at
the end of the extension year. If the requisite three consecutive years
of air quality data needed to determine attainment are still not
available after the first extension, the state may apply for a second
one-year extension of the attainment date if the requirements listed
above for the first extension remain satisfied. The EPA will also
consider the state's PM2.5 planning progress for the area in
the year for which the first extension is granted, and if the area does
not have the requisite three consecutive years of air quality data
needed to demonstrate attainment at the end of the second extension, no
further extensions of the attainment date can be granted. Once a final
determination of failure to attain is made by the EPA and published in
the Federal Register, the area will be reclassified as Serious by
operation of law. See CAA section 188(b)(2).
    As a Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment area, the Logan, UT-ID
nonattainment area was required by CAA section 188 to attain the 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS by December 31, 2015. On December 15, 2015,
and February 26, 2016, the State of Idaho requested that the EPA use
the discretion allowed under CAA section 188(d) to grant a one-year
extension to the Moderate area attainment date for Logan, UT-ID, from
December 31, 2015 to December 31, 2016. In a proposed action published
December 16, 2016,\1\ the EPA denied Idaho's request because at the
time the nonattainment area did not meet the air quality criterion
under CAA section 188(d). Specifically, the Logan, Utah Federal
Reference Method (FRM) monitor used for determining compliance with the
PM2.5 NAAQS did not have complete and valid 2015 data in
accordance with EPA regulations (81 FR 91088). As a result, the EPA
could not determine that the data for the Logan monitor met the 98th
percentile requirement set forth in 40 CFR 51.1005(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Determinations of Attainment by the Attainment Date,
Determinations of Failure to Attain by the Attainment Date and
Reclassification for Certain Nonattainment Areas for the 2006 24-
hour Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards,
81 FR 91088 (Dec. 16, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following this proposed action, and as a result of subsequent
events described below, the State of Idaho submitted a letter on April
25, 2017, requesting a second one-year Moderate area attainment date
extension, from December 31, 2016 to December 31, 2017. On May 2, 2017,
the State of Utah requested two, one-year extensions of the attainment
date for the Logan, UT-ID nonattainment area, from December 31, 2015 to
December 31, 2016, and then December 31, 2016 to December 31, 2017.
Each of the extension requests from Idaho and Utah can be found in the
Region 8 and Region 10 dockets for the Logan, UT-ID nonattainment area
proposed extension request actions, EPA-R08-OAR-2017-0216 and EPA-R10-
OAR-2017-0193.

III. Basis for EPA's Proposed Action

A. Compliance With the Applicable SIP

    The PM2.5 Implementation Rule interprets the extension
provisions found in CAA section 188(d)(1). See 40 CFR 51.1005(a)(1).
Under the rule, a state must show that it submitted a SIP to meet the
requirements as listed in 40 CFR 51.1003(a), including the necessary
control measures, and that RACM/RACT and additional reasonable measures
for sources in the area have been implemented. To qualify for an
extension, the state must have adopted the SIP revision through the
established state process, submitted the plan to the EPA, and begun
implementing the plan; but the state plan would not need to have been
approved by the EPA in order for the state to qualify for an extension.
    On December 4, 2012, UDAQ submitted a SIP for the Utah portion of
the Logan, UT-ID PM2.5 nonattainment area, and was prepared
to satisfy the requirements of CAA subpart 1, as interpreted by the
EPA's Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule (72 FR 20586, April
25, 2007). After the January 4, 2013, D.C. Circuit ruling and
subsequent EPA Classification and Deadlines Rule, the State of Utah
withdrew the original SIP submittal and submitted an updated SIP to
cover CAA subpart 1 and subpart 4 on December 22, 2014. This SIP
includes: (1) A modeled attainment demonstration (chapter 5 of the SIP
and chapter 4 of the technical support document (TSD)); (2) an
emissions inventory (chapter 4 of the SIP and chapter 3 of the TSD);
(3) RACM for area and on-road mobile sources (chapter 6 of the SIP and
chapter 5 of the TSD); (4) a RACT review (chapter 6 of the SIP and
chapter 5 of the TSD); (5) reasonable further progress for direct
PM2.5, nitrogen oxides (NOX), sulfur dioxide
(SO2), and volatile organic compounds (VOC) (chapter 8 of
the SIP); (6) a demonstration that ammonia is not a significant
precursor to PM2.5 in the area (chapter 4 of the TSD); (7)
motor vehicle emission budgets (chapter 7 of the SIP); (8) quantitative
milestones (chapter 8 of the SIP); and (9) contingency measures
(chapter 9 of the SIP). The EPA intends to take action on the December
22, 2014 SIP in the near future. The Utah SIP and supporting materials,
including the TSD, can be found in the docket for this action. The
Idaho SIP and supporting materials can be found in Region 10's docket,
EPA-R10-OAR-2015-0067. Additionally, the supporting documentation for
ID's two one-year extension requests can be found in Region 10's
docket, EPA-R10-OAR-2017-0193.
    EPA has reviewed Utah's existing SIP and the December 22, 2014, SIP
submission and determined that the state is implementing the
requirements and commitments in the submitted SIP. Based on this, the
EPA proposes to determine that the state meets the criterion found in
40 CFR 51.1005(a)(1)(i). The control measures that Utah submitted for
the Logan UT-ID NAA consist of a vehicle inspection and maintenance (I/
M) program and area source rules. The EPA approved the vehicle I/M
program on September 9, 2015 (80 FR 54237). The program was initiated
on January 1, 2014, and requires a biennial test for vehicles greater
than six years old that are of model year 1969 and newer. Half of

these vehicles were tested for the first time in 2014 and the rest were
tested in 2015; prior to the attainment date for the area. The EPA has
also approved or conditionally approved the area source rules submitted
by the State. 81 FR 9343; 81 FR 71988. Some of the area source rules
were implemented as early as January 1, 2013, but most carried an
implementation date of December 1, 2014. All of them were effective and
fully enforceable by January 1, 2015.
    Similarly, the EPA approved Idaho's woodstove curtailment
ordinances, burn ban, heating device restrictions, and woodstove
change-out programs as meeting the RACM/RACT requirements in this area
(82 FR 729, January 4, 2017). The woodstove curtailment ordinances,
burn ban, and heating device restrictions were adopted and fully
implemented in the summer and fall of 2012 in preparation for Idaho's
December 14, 2012 attainment plan SIP revision. The residential
woodstove change-out program was conducted in 2011 to 2012, with a
subsequent round of change-outs in 2013 to 2014. A full description of
the control measures is included in our December 26, 2013 proposed
approval (78 FR 78315) and March 25, 2014 final approval (79 FR 16201).
On April 25, 2017, Idaho committed to supplementing the 2012 attainment
plan SIP revision, and Idaho's December 24, 2014 amendment to the
attainment plan SIP revision, to comply with the revised regulatory
requirements of the 2016 PM2.5 Implementation Rule for
reasonable further progress, quantitative milestones, and motor vehicle
emissions budgets. The EPA's proposed conditional approval of these SIP
elements is addressed under docket number EPA-R10-OAR-2015-0067.
    The EPA proposes that the criterion found in 40 CFR
51.1005(a)(1)(i) has been met. Utah and Idaho submitted SIPs for the
Logan, UT-ID Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment area that address
the CAA requirements for Moderate areas and the states have implemented
the permanent and enforceable control measures identified above and the
other requirements of the SIPs.

B. Air Quality Data

    In accordance with 40 CFR part 58, UDAQ and IDEQ both operate
PM2.5 monitors in the Logan, UT-ID PM2.5
nonattainment area. The IDEQ monitoring site for 2015 and 2016 was
located in Franklin, Idaho. In 2015, UDAQ operated two PM2.5
monitoring sites, at Logan and Smithfield, and in 2016, UDAQ operated
only the Smithfield monitoring site. In the past, the monitor with the
highest air quality design value in the nonattainment area has been
located in Utah.
    As explained in the May 8, 2017 memorandum in the docket, a large
number of samples from the filter-based FRM monitor at Logan were
invalid. After review of the PM2.5 data for 2015, UDAQ
removed the invalid samples for its filter based FRM monitor and left
the valid samples in the Air Quality System (AQS) database.
Additionally, some continuous sampler data from a co-located Federal
Equivalent Methods (FEM) monitor were determined to have sufficient
quality assurance to meet NAAQS comparison requirements. The Logan site
had one FEM monitor co-located at the site, and data from this monitor
were used to fill in some of the missing days in 2015, adding to the
total number of samples that can be used to determine a 98th percentile
value for that year and to provide for a complete 2015 monitoring year.
Utah used the methodology found in 40 CFR part 50, appendix N 3.0(d)(2)
and 40 CFR part 50, appendix N 3.0(e) to substitute FEM data for the
days without FRM data.
    The EPA has reviewed this site and, using the criteria found in 40
CFR part 58, appendix A, has determined that the quality assurance (QA)
for the continuous FEM monitor is acceptable such that data from the
FEM monitor can be substituted for the days for which the FRM monitor
data was invalid. Additional information related to these monitors can
be found in the November 23, 2016 memoranda found in the docket for
this proposed action.
    On March 14, 2017, the EPA approved Utah's 2016 Annual Monitoring
Network Plan (AMNP). As part of the approval, the EPA approved the
closing of the Logan monitoring station (AQS ID# 49-005-0004) and the
opening of the Smithfield monitoring station (AQS ID# 49-005-0007). The
Logan and Smithfield monitoring stations both ran in 2015; however, the
Smithfield monitoring site data was incomplete for 2015 because the
station, including the co-located continuous monitor, was not operating
in January of that year. The Logan monitoring site shut down on
December 31, 2015, and Smithfield became the only operating monitor in
the Utah portion of the Logan, UT-ID PM2.5 nonattainment
area. Additionally, on April 20, 2017, UDAQ submitted a letter that
contained the AMP 600 and AMP 450NC reports required to certify the
2016 air quality data in Utah. UDAQ completed the data certification
process in AQS and with the April 20, 2017 letter, certifies that the
2016 air quality data is accurate.
    The EPA is using data from calendar year 2015 to determine whether
the Logan, UT-ID PM2.5 nonattainment area met the air
quality criteria for granting a one-year extension of the attainment
date, from December 31, 2015 to December 31, 2016, under CAA section
188(d). Additionally, the EPA is using calendar year 2016 data to
determine whether the Logan, UT-ID PM2.5 nonattainment area
met the air quality criteria for granting an extension of the
attainment date from December 31, 2016 to December 31, 2017.
    In 2015, the 98th percentile for the Logan, UT-ID PM2.5
nonattainment area at the Logan (Utah) and Franklin (Idaho) monitoring
sites were 29.0 [micro]g/m\3\ and 18.8 [micro]g/m\3\, respectively,
which are both below the 35 [micro]g/m\3\ standard. Thus, the area met
the requirement to qualify for a one-year attainment date extension
under CAA section 188(d)(2). See 40 CFR 51.1005(a)(1)(ii). In 2016, the
98th percentile for the Logan, UT-ID PM2.5 nonattainment
area at the Smithfield (Utah) and Franklin (Idaho) monitoring sites
were 34.4 [micro]g/m\3\ and 33.3 [micro]g/m\3\, respectively, which are
both below the 35 [micro]g/m\3\ standard. Thus, the area met the
requirements to qualify for a second one-year attainment date extension
under CAA section 188(d)(2). Based on the information above, the
criterion in 40 CFR 51.1005(a)(1)(ii) has been met for both one-year
extensions.

IV. EPA's Proposed Action

    In response to requests from the Governor of Utah on May 2, 2017,
and from the IDEQ on December 15, 2015, February 26, 2016, and April
25, 2017, the EPA is proposing to grant two, one-year attainment date
extensions to the Moderate attainment date for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS for the Logan, UT-ID nonattainment area. If
finalized, this action would extend the Moderate area attainment date
for the Logan, UT-ID nonattainment area from December 31, 2015 to
December 31, 2016, and from December 31, 2016 to December 31, 2017. The
proposed action to extend the Moderate attainment date for this
nonattainment area is based on both states' compliance with the
requirements for the applicable SIPs for the area and on the 2015 and
2016 PM2.5 98th percentile data from the Logan (Utah),
Smithfield (Utah), and Franklin (Idaho) monitoring sites in the Logan,
UT-ID nonattainment area. If we finalize this proposal, consistent with
CAA section 188(d) and 40 CFR 51.1005(a)(1), the nonattainment area
will remain a Moderate PM2.5 nonattainment area, with a
Moderate area attainment date of December 31, 2017. Additionally, the
states will not have to submit the additional planning requirements
that apply to Serious PM2.5 nonattainment

areas unless the area fails to attain the standard by the extended
Moderate area attainment date and the area is reclassified to a Serious
PM2.5 nonattainment area. Consistent with CAA section
188(b)(2), the EPA will determine whether the area attained the
standard within six months following the applicable attainment date.
    This action is not a redesignation to attainment under CAA section
107(d)(3)(E). Utah and Idaho are not currently attaining the NAAQS and
have not submitted maintenance plans as required under section 175(A)
of the CAA or met the other statutory requirements for redesignation to
attainment. The designation status in 40 CFR part 81 will remain a
Moderate nonattainment area until such time as Utah and Idaho meet the
CAA requirements for redesignation to attainment or the area is
reclassified to Serious.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

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

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and therefore is
not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
This proposed action merely approves a state request as meeting federal
requirements and imposes no new requirements.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose any additional information collection
burden under the provisions of the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. This
action merely approves a state request for an attainment date
extension, and this action does not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities beyond those
imposed by state law. Approval of a state's request for an attainment
date extension does not create any new requirements and does not
directly regulate any entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. This action does not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, no additional costs to
state, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, will
result from this action.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Pursuant
to the CAA, this action merely approves a state request for an
attainment date extension.

F. Executive Order 13175: Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175. No tribal areas are located in the nonattainment
area that will be receiving an attainment date extension. The CAA and
the Tribal Authority Rule establish the relationship of the federal
government and tribes in developing plans to attain the NAAQS, and this
rule does nothing to modify that relationship. Thus, Executive Order
13175 does not apply to this action.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is
not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 12866, and
because the EPA does not believe any environmental health or safety
risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to
children. This action merely approves a state request for an attainment
date extension and it does not impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law.

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

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

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards. This action
merely approves a state request for an attainment date extension.

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

    The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
This action approves a state request for an attainment date extension
based on the state's compliance with requirements and commitments in
its plan and recent air quality monitoring data that meets requirements
for an extension.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: May 25, 2017.
Debra H. Thomas,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2017-11686 Filed 6-5-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 52 (Tuesday, March 17, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 15160]
[FR Doc No: 2020-05464]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. OR20-8-000]

Explorer Pipeline Company; Notice of Petition for Declaratory
Order

    Take notice that on February 26, 2020, pursuant to Rule 207(a)(2)
of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of
Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207(a)(2) (2019), Explorer Pipeline
Company (Explorer), filed a petition for declaratory order requesting
that the Commission approve certain terms and conditions of service
related to a proposed new transportation service from the U.S. Gulf
Coast receipt points on Explorer's system to a new delivery point on
Explorer's system in Melissa, Texas, all as more fully explained in the
petition.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date.
Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Petitioner.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
eLibrary link and is available for review in the Commission's Public
Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the
website that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a
document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any
FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call
(866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on April 1, 2020.

    Dated: March 11, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-05464 Filed 3-16-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


Comment Info: =================

General Comment:Dear Mr. Zeller:

I am writing as an individual consumer to request an extension of the comment period for the Food and Drug Administration's ("FDA") Proposed Rule Deeming Tobacco Products to be Subject to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Family Smoking and Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (the "Proposed Rule") published at 79 Fed. Reg. 23,142 and Federal Register No. 2014-09491. On behalf of myself, I am requesting that the comment period for the Proposed Rule be extended by the FDA for an additional 105 days, from its current 75-day period, to 180 days.

The Proposed Rule raises a number of significant issues and questions that are important and relevant to me, as a consumer of products that are proposed for regulation under the Proposed Rule. The Proposed Rule asks about a hundred different questions I might want to respond to. I want to provide my thoughts and comments on many of these issues, but my time to devote to researching and providing thoughtful comments on these important questions is limited. I have already spent many hours researching and dissecting these issues, but they take time. I know that the FDA took many years to even come up with the Proposed Rule, so I do not think it is at all unreasonable to allow the public a mere six months to comment on it. This is our only opportunity, as consumers, to provide our feedback.

I feel very strongly about e-cigarettes as an alternative to combustible cigarettes. Quite simply, I firmly believe that they saved my life. I wish to provide you with my personal story, as well as science- and evidence-based responses to your questions so that you can take my comment into account. I realize that the FDA has the authority under 21 CFR 10.40 to extend this time frame and that the FDA has exercised this authority on numerous occasions in the past. I would therefore ask that you do so here, so that all stakeholders have the opportunity to provide their comments on this proposed regulation.

I smoked 2 packs of cigs a day for many years. I am 59 years old. I started smoking when I was 16 years old and smoked for 15 years. I restarted smoking 8 years ago and stopped smoking 3 years ago.  It was very hard to quit the first time. Will power took 3 years to quit the first time,  I must have quit at least 30 times before it worked.

The second time I quit it worked in 1 try.  That was because I used E cigs to quit smoking.  When I first started e cigs I coughed up nasty looking phlegm for almost 3 weeks as my body got used to the lack of cigarette smoke.  I have never felt better.  My "wind" is greatly improved and I don't even run.

Keep e cigs on the market as they are far better than cigs.

I appreciate your consideration of my request and am happy to discuss this issue with you further.

Lonnie Lepp


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 203 (Thursday, October 20, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 65118-65120]
[FR Doc No: 2011-27128]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2011-0816]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Bear Creek, Sparrows Point, MD

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is canceling a portion of an existing
drawbridge operation regulation. The Baltimore County Revenue Authority
(Dundalk Avenue) highway toll drawbridge across Bear Creek, mile 1.5,
Sparrows Point, MD was replaced with a fixed bridge in 1998. Therefore,
that portion of the operating regulation, as it pertains to the Dundalk
Avenue highway toll drawbridge, is no longer applicable or necessary.

DATES: This rule is effective October 20, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket, are part of docket USCG-2011-0816 and are available by
going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2011-0816 in the
``Keyword'' box, and then clicking ``Search.'' This material is also
available for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility
(M-30), U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor,
Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or e-mail Lindsey Middleton, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>,
e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing
the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this final 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), the Coast Guard finds
that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because the Baltimore
County Revenue Authority (Dundalk Avenue) highway toll draw bridge
requiring draw operations, as specified in 33 CFR 117.543(a), was
removed and replaced with a fixed bridge in 1998. That portion of the
regulation has not been enforced since the replacement of the bridge,
approximately thirteen years ago. The regulations governing the bridge,
which is no longer a drawbridge, are no longer applicable and shall be
removed from this section. It is unnecessary to publish an NPRM as this
regulation cancels a regulation that has no further practical value. It
is further unnecessary to publish an NPRM because operators transiting
this portion of the waterway are aware that the bridge is now a fixed
bridge. And, it is unnecessary to publish an NPRM because this
regulation does not purport to place any restriction on mariners but
rather removes a restriction that has no further applicability.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), a rule that relieves a restriction is not
required to provide the 30 day notice period before its effective date.
This rule removes the Baltimore County Revenue Authority (Dundalk
Avenue) highway toll draw operation requirements under 33 CFR
117.543(a), thus removing a regulatory restriction on the public.
Additionally, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for making this rule effective in less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. The bridge has been a fixed bridge
for the past 13 years; this rule merely requires an administrative
change to the Federal Register, in order to omit a regulatory
requirement that is no longer applicable or necessary.

Basis and Purpose

    The drawbridge across Bear Creek, mile 1.5 was removed and replaced
with a fixed bridge in 1998. Prior to 1998, a regulation was necessary
to govern the operation of the openings of the drawbridge. After 1998,
because the bridge can no longer be opened, there became no need for a
regulation governing openings. It has come to the attention of the
Coast Guard that the regulation was never updated subsequent to the
completion of the fixed bridge. Therefore, this regulation seeks to
alter the original regulation, to remove that portion which does not
have present applicability due to the present capabilities of the
bridge. The elimination of this drawbridge necessitates the
modification of the Baltimore County Revenue Authority (Dundalk Avenue)
highway toll drawbridge operation regulation.
    The regulation governing the operation of the bridge is found in 33
CFR 117.543(a). The purpose of this rule is to remove the portion of 33
CFR 117.543(a) that refers to the Baltimore County Revenue Authority
(Dundalk Avenue) highway toll bridge at mile 1.5, from the Code of
Federal Regulations since it governs a bridge that is no longer able to
be opened.
    The regulation found at 33 CFR 117.543 also governs the Peninsula
Parkway Bridge, mile 2.1, and the Wise Avenue Bridge, mile 3.4. This
Final Rule shall not alter the operating regulations in place at 33 CFR
117.543 for the Peninsula Parkway Bridge and the Wise Avenue Bridge.
This rule shall only remove that verbiage regulating the Dundalk Avenue
Bridge.

Discussion of Rule

    The Coast Guard is changing the regulation in 33 CFR 117.543 by
removing the restrictions and the regulatory burden related to the draw
operations for this bridge which is no longer a drawbridge. The change
removes the portion of the regulation governing the Baltimore County
Revenue Authority (Dundalk Avenue) highway toll bridge because the
bridge has been replaced with a fixed bridge. The replacement took
place in 1998, approximately thirteen years ago. This Final Rule seeks
to update the Code of Federal Regulations by removing language that
regulates signaling and notice requirements for the opening of a bridge
that, in fact, can no longer open. This change does not affect vessel
operators using the waterway. This change does not affect nor does it
alter those portions of 33 CFR 117.543 dealing with the Peninsula
Parkway Bridge and the Wise Avenue Bridge.

Regulatory Analyses

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

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, 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 that Order. The Office of
Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order.
    The Coast Guard does not consider this rule to be ``significant''
under that Order because it is an administrative change and does not
affect the way vessels operate on the waterway.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the
Coast Guard considers whether this final rule will have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. ``Small
entities'' include (1) small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and (2) governmental jurisdictions with populations of less
than 50,000.
    Since this drawbridge has been removed and replaced with a fixed
bridge, the regulation governing draw operations for this bridge is no
longer needed. There is no new restriction or regulation being imposed
by this rule; therefore, the Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C.
605(b) that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities

Collection of Information

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

Federalism

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

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have

taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions
and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights.

Civil Justice Reform

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

Protection of Children

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

Indian Tribal Governments

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

Energy Effects

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

Technical Standards

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

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guides the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
that this action is one of a category of actions which do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1,
paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction.
    Under figure 2-1, paragraph (32)(e), of the Instruction, an
environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are not required for this rule because this rule affects
the promulgation of operating regulations or procedures for
drawbridges.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

    Bridges.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 117 as follows:

PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS

0
1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Revise paragraph (a) of Sec.  117.543 to read as follows:

Sec.  117.543  Bear Creek.

    (a) The draw of the Peninsula Parkway Bridge, mile 2.1, between
Dundalk and Sparrows Point, shall open on signal; except that, from
April 16 through November 15 from 12 midnight to 8 a.m. except
Saturdays and Sundays, and Federal and State holidays, at least one
half hour notice is required.
* * * * *

    October 5, 2011.
William D. Lee,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2011-27128 Filed 10-19-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P