[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 120 (Friday, June 21, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37455-37456]
[FR Doc No: 2013-14788]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[USCG-2013-0464]

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Charles River, Boston, MA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Commander, First Coast Guard District, has issued a
temporary deviation from the regulations governing the operation of the
Metropolitan District Commission (Craigie) Bridge across the Charles
River, mile 1.0, at Boston, Massachusetts. Under this temporary
deviation the bridge may remain in the closed position for two hours on
July 4, 2013, to facilitate the Fourth of July Concert and Fireworks.
This deviation is necessary to facilitate public safety during a public
event.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 10 p.m. on July 4, 2013 through
12 a.m. on July 5, 2013.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this deviation, [USCG-2013-0464] is available
at http://www.regulations.gov. Type the docket number in the ``SEARCH''
box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line
associated with this deviation. You may also visit the Docket
Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary deviation, call John McDonald, Project Officer, First Coast
Guard District, at<PHONE_NUMBER>. If you have questions on viewing the
docket, call Barbara Hairston, Program Manager, Docket Operations,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On June 14th, a temporary deviation from the
drawbridge regulation was published in the Federal Register (78 FR
35756) under the same name and docket number. This temporary deviation
modifies the times listed on the previously published deviation in
which the deviation will be in effect.
    The Metropolitan District Commission (Craigie) Bridge, across the
Charles River, mile 1.0, at Boston, Massachusetts, has a vertical
clearance in the closed position of 13.5 feet at normal pool elevation
above the Charles River Dam. The existing drawbridge operation
regulations are listed at 33 CFR Sec.  117.591(e).
    The waterway is predominantly a recreational waterway supporting
various size vessels.
    The owner of the bridge, Massachusetts Department of
Transportation, requested a temporary deviation to facilitate public
safety during a public event, the 2013 Fourth of July Concert and
Fireworks.
    Under this temporary deviation, in effect from 10 p.m. on July 4,
2013 through 12 a.m. on July 5, 2013, the Metropolitan District
Commission (Craigie) Bridge, mile 1.0, across the Charles River at
Boston, Massachusetts, may remain in the closed position.
    Vessels that can pass under the bridge without a bridge opening may
do so at all times.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), the bridge must return to its
regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the designated
time period. This deviation from the operating regulations is
authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: June 11, 2013.
Gary Kassof,
Bridge Program Manager, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2013-14788 Filed 6-20-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 111 (Thursday, June 9, 2022)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 35092-35094]
[FR Doc No: 2022-12408]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2022-0473]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Firework Display; Elizabeth River, Norfolk, VA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
navigable waters within a 500 yard radius from a fireworks barge
located near Town Point Park in Norfolk, VA. The purpose of this
rulemaking is to ensure the safety of persons, vessels, and the
navigable waters within close proximity to fireworks displays before,
during, and after the scheduled events. Hazards with this event include
potential falling debris and possible fire, explosion, projectile, and
burn hazards. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited
unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP)
Virginia.

DATES: This rule is effective from noon on June 10, 2022, through 11:59
p.m. on June 12, 2022. This rule will be enforced from 8 p.m. until 11
p.m. on June 11, 2022, or those same hours on June 12, 2022, in the
case of inclement weather on June 11, 2022. This rule may also be
enforced during additional times during the effective period if deemed
necessary by the COTP or the Coast Guard designated representative. The
COTP or designated representative will notify the public of additional
enforcement of this zone during its effective period by all appropriate
means to affect the widest publicity among the affected public,
including by Local Notices to Mariners and by Broadcast Notice to
Mariners over VHF-FM marine band radio.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2022-0473 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email LCDR Ashley Holm, Chief, Waterways Management Division,
Sector Virginia, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> email
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

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

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule. It is impracticable and contrary to the
public interest to publish an NPRM for this rule because this safety
zone must be in effect by June 11, 2022, to ensure the safety of
persons, vessels, and the navigable waters within close proximity to
the fireworks display from potential hazards that associated with this
event. These potential hazards include falling debris and possible
fire, explosion, projectile, and burn hazards. There is not sufficient
time to allow for a notice and comment period prior to the event.
    While we are unable to provide the public a chance to comment on
the temporary final rule establishing a safety zone for this year's
event, we have recently solicited comments from the public for a safety
zone at this location for future fireworks displays associated with
Harborfest. On March 18, 2022, the Coast Guard published an NPRM to
amend its safety zones established for recurring marine events and
fireworks displays that take place within the Fifth Coast Guard
District area of responsibility (87 FR 15347). That proposal included
the addition of a recurring safety zone for Harborfest at the same
location as this temporary final rule. On May 13, 2022, the final rule
was published and the Coast Guard addressed the one comment received
(87 FR 29226). This temporary final rule is needed because the final
rule establishing the recurring event will not be effective until after
the event for this year.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date would
be impracticable and contrary to the public interest. Immediate action
is needed to ensure the safety of event spectators, support craft and
other vessels transiting the navigational waters adjacent to the event.
For the safety concerns noted, it is in the public interest to have
these regulations in effect during the event. However, advance
notifications will be made to affected users of the waterway via marine
information broadcasts and an article in the Local Notice to Mariners.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The COTP has determined that
potential hazards associated with the fireworks events present a safety
concern for anyone within the safety zone. The purpose of this rule is
to ensure safety of vessels and the navigable waters in the safety zone
before, during, and after the scheduled event.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a safety zone from noon on June 10, 2022,
through 11:59 p.m. on June 12, 2022. This rule will be enforced from 8
p.m. until 11 p.m. on June 11, 2022, or those same hours on June 12,
2022, in the case of inclement weather on June 11, 2022. This rule may
also be enforced during additional times during the effective period if
deemed necessary by the COTP or the Coast Guard designated
representative. The COTP or designated representative will notify the
public of additional enforcement of this zone during its effective
period by all appropriate means to affect the widest publicity among
the affected public, including by Local Notices to Mariners and by
Broadcast Notice to Mariners over VHF-FM marine band radio.
    The safety zone will cover all navigable waters within a 500 yard
radius from a fireworks barge located at approximate latitude
36[deg]50'41'' N, longitude 076[deg]17'47'' W, located near Town Point
Park in Norfolk, VA. The duration of the zone is intended to protect
personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable
waters during the fireworks display. No vessel or person will be
permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from
the COTP or a designated representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule
has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the short amount
of time that vessels will be restricted from certain parts of the
waterway and the small size of these areas that are usually positioned
away from high vessel traffic zones. This rule will be in effect for 36
hours. Generally vessels would not be precluded from getting underway,
or mooring at any piers or marinas currently located in the vicinity of
the regulated area. Advance notifications will also be made to the
local maritime community by issuance of Local Notice to Mariners,
Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16, and Marine
Safety Information or Security Bulletins so mariners can adjust their
plans accordingly. The Coast Guard anticipates that this safety zone
will only be enforced for a limited duration while it is in effect.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees

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

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and
Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of
a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a
safety zone lasting only 30 minutes that will prohibit entry within 500
yards of a fireworks barge. It is categorically excluded from further
review under paragraph L60c of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction
Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Memorandum for Record is available in
the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES
section of this preamble.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
00170.1, Revision No. 01.2.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T05-0473 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T05-0473   Safety Zone; Firework Display; Elizabeth River,
Norfolk, VA.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: all waters of
the Elizabeth River within a 500 yard radius from a fireworks barge
located at approximate position latitude 36[deg]50'41'' N, longitude
076[deg]17'47'' W, located near Town Point Park in Norfolk, VA.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section, designated representative
means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain,
petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel and a
Federal, State, and local officer designated by or assisting the
Captain of the Port (COTP) Virginia in the enforcement of the special
local regulation.
    (c) Regulation. (1) No vessel or person is permitted to enter the
safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated
representative.
    (2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's
representative via VHF FM Channel 16. Those in the safety zone must
comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP
or the COTP's designated representative.
    (d) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 8 p.m.
until 11 p.m. on June 11, 2022, or those same hours on June 12, 2022,
in the case of inclement weather on June 11, 2022. This section may
also be enforced during additional times during the effective period if
deemed necessary by the COTP or the Coast Guard designated
representative. The COTP or designated representative will notify the
public of additional enforcement of this zone during its effective
period by all appropriate means to affect the widest publicity among
the affected public, including by Local Notices to Mariners and by
Broadcast Notice to Mariners over VHF-FM marine band radio.

    Dated: June 3, 2022.
S.C. Stevens,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Virginia.
[FR Doc. 2022-12408 Filed 6-8-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 20, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28695-28697]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13160]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-83430; File No. SR-CboeEDGX-2018-017]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.; Notice
of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Related
to Physical Port Fees for EDGX Options

June 14, 2018.
    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 June 1, 2018, Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``Exchange'' or ``EDGX'')
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the
proposed rule

change as described in Items I, II and III below, which Items have been
prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange has designated the proposed rule
change as one establishing or changing a member due, fee, or other
charge imposed by the Exchange under Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act
\3\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(2) thereunder,\4\ which renders the proposed rule
change effective upon filing with the Commission. 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.
    \3\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
    \4\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange filed a proposal to amend its fees and rebates
applicable to Members \5\ and non-Members of the Exchange pursuant to
EDGX Rule 15.1(a) and (c) to modify its fees for physical ports.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The term ``Member'' is defined as ``any registered broker or
dealer that has been admitted to membership in the Exchange.'' See
Exchange Rule 1.5(n).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's
website at www.markets.cboe.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 Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such
statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to implement proposed changes to its fee
schedule for its equity options platform (``EDGX Options'') relating to
physical connectivity fees, effective June 1, 2018. By way of
background, a physical port is utilized by a Member or non-Member to
connect to the Exchange at the data centers where the Exchange's
servers are located. The Exchange currently maintains a presence in two
third-party data centers: (i) The primary data center where the
Exchange's business is primarily conducted on a daily basis, and (ii) a
secondary data center, which is predominantly maintained for business
continuity purposes. The Exchange currently assesses the following
physical connectivity fees for Members and non-Members on a monthly
basis: $2,000 Per physical port for a 1 gigabyte circuit and $7,000 per
physical port for a 10 gigabyte circuit. The Exchange proposes to
increase the fees per physical ports from (i) $2,000 to $2,500 per
month, per port for a 1 gigabyte circuit and (ii) $7,000 to $7,500 per
month, per port for a 10 gigabyte circuit. The Exchange notes the
proposed fees enable it to continue to maintain and improve its market
technology and services and also notes that the proposed fee changes
are in line with the amounts assessed by other exchanges for similar
connections.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See e.g., NYSE Arca Equities Fees and Charges, NYSE Arca
Marketplace: Other Fees and Charges, Connectivity Fees. See also,
Nasdaq Phlx LLC Pricing Schedule, Section XI, Direct Connectivity to
Phlx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange also proposes to adopt separate physical port fees for
connection to its secondary data center, which is predominantly
maintained for business continuity purposes (``Disaster Recovery
Systems''). Particularly, the Disaster Recovery Systems can be accessed
via physical ports in Chicago. Members and Non-Members may maintain
physical ports in order to be able to connect to the Disaster Recovery
Systems in case of a disaster. Currently, physical ports that are used
to connect to the Disaster Recovery Systems are assessed the same fees
as physical ports used to connect to the Exchange's trading system. The
Exchange proposes to establish separate pricing for physical ports that
are used to connect to the Disaster Recovery Systems (``Disaster
Recovery Physical Ports''). Specifically, the Exchange proposes to
assess a monthly fee of $2,000 per 1 gigabyte Disaster Recovery
Physical Port and a monthly fee of $6,000 per 10 gigabyte Disaster
Recovery Physical Port. This amount will continue to enable the
Exchange to maintain the Disaster Recovery Physical Ports in case they
become necessary. The Exchange notes that the Disaster Recovery
Physical Ports may also be used to access the Disaster Recovery Systems
for the following affiliate exchanges Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc., Cboe BYX
Exchange, Inc., Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc., Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc., Cboe
Exchange, Inc. and Cboe Futures Exchange, LLC as well. The Exchange
proposes to provide that market participants will only be assessed a
single fee for any Disaster Recovery Physical Port that also accesses
the Disaster Recover Systems for these exchanges.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ For example, if a market participant uses a 1 gigabyte
Disaster Recovery Physical Port to connect to the Disaster Recovery
Systems for both BYX and EDGX, the market participant would only be
assessed one monthly fee of $2,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the objectives of Section 6 of the Act,\8\ in general, and
furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(4),\9\ in particular, as it is
designed to provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues,
fees and other charges among its Members and other persons using its
facilities. The Exchange also notes that it operates in a highly-
competitive market in which market participants can readily direct
order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular
venue to be excessive. The proposed rule change reflects a competitive
pricing structure designed to incent market participants to direct
their order flow to the Exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes that the proposed changes are equitable and
non-discriminatory in that it applies uniformly to all Members. Members
and non-Members will continue to choose whether they want more than one
physical port and/or Disaster Recovery Physical Port and choose the
method of connectivity based on their specific needs. All Members that
voluntarily select various service options will be charged the same
amount for the same services.
    The Exchange believes that the proposal represents an equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges as its fees for
physical connectivity are reasonably constrained by competitive
alternatives. If a particular exchange charges excessive fees for
connectivity, affected Members and non-Members may opt to terminate
their connectivity arrangements with that exchange, and adopt a
possible range of alternative strategies, including routing to the
applicable exchange through another participant or market center or
taking that exchange's data indirectly. Accordingly, if the Exchange
charges excessive fees, it would stand to lose not only connectivity
revenues but also revenues associated with the execution of orders
routed to it, and, to the extent applicable, market data revenues. The
Exchange believes that

this competitive dynamic imposes powerful restraints on the ability of
any exchange to charge unreasonable fees for connectivity.
    Furthermore, the proposed rule change is also an equitable
allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges as the Exchange
believes that the proposed increased physical port fees will enable it
to cover its infrastructure costs associated with establishing physical
ports to connect to the Exchange's systems. The additional revenue from
the increased fees will also enable the Exchange to continue to
maintain and improve its market technology and services. Similarly, the
Exchange believes the proposed fees for the Disaster Recovery Physical
Ports will allow the Exchange to maintain the Disaster Recovery
Physical Ports in case they become necessary.
    Lastly, the Exchange believes the fees remain competitive with
those charged by other venues and therefore continue to be reasonable
and equitably allocated to Members.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See e.g., NYSE Arca Equities Fees and Charges, NYSE Arca
Marketplace: Other Fees and Charges, Connectivity Fees. See also,
Nasdaq Phlx LLC Pricing Schedule, Section XI, Direct Connectivity to
Phlx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(B) Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As discussed above, the
Exchange believes that fees for connectivity are constrained by the
robust competition for order flow among exchanges and non-exchange
markets. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes
represent a significant departure from previous pricing offered by the
Exchange or pricing offered by the Exchange's competitors.
Additionally, Members may opt to disfavor the Exchange's pricing if
they believe that alternatives offer them better value. Further,
excessive fees for connectivity would serve to impair an exchange's
ability to compete for order flow rather than burdening competition.

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

    The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit,
comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received
any unsolicited written comments from Members or other interested
parties.

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

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

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-CboeEDGX-2018-017 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-CboeEDGX-2018-017. 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 website (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 website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549, on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-CboeEDGX-2018-017 and should be
submitted on or before July 11, 2018.

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

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

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-13160 Filed 6-19-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 189 (Monday, October 4, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 54622-54624]
[FR Doc No: 2021-21552]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2021-0647]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; CBWTP Outfall Diffuser Improvements, Columbia River,
Portland, OR

AGENCY: Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
certain waters of the Columbia River. This action is necessary to
provide for the safety of life on these navigable waters near Portland,
OR, at Columbia River Mile 105.6 during construction from November 1,
2021 through February 28, 2022. This regulation prohibits persons and
vessels from being in the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain
of the Port Sector Columbia River or a designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 12:01 a.m. on November 1, 2021,
through 11:59 p.m. on February 28, 2022.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2021-0647 in the search box and click ``Search.'' Next, in the Document
Type column, select ``Supporting & Related Material.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email LCDR Sean Morrison, Waterways Management Division, Marine
Safety Unit Portland, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

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

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    On July 20, 2021, Ballard Marine Construction notified the Coast
Guard that it would begin construction on the CBWTP Outfall Diffuser
Improvements Project from 12:01 a.m. on October 1, 2021, through 11:59
p.m. on February 28, 2022, to remove and replace existing pipeline. On
September 27, 2021, Ballard Marine Construction updated the start date
to November 1, 2021. Work includes dredging and dive operations at
Columbia River Mile 105.6. In response, on August 23, 2021, the Coast
Guard published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) titled ``Safety
Zone; CBWTP Outfall Diffuser Improvements, Columbia River, Portland,
OR'' (86 FR 47044). There we stated why we issued the NPRM, and invited
comments on our proposed regulatory action related to this construction
project. During the comment period that ended September 7, 2021, we
received no comments.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date of
this rule would be impracticable because immediate action is needed to
respond to the potential safety hazards associated with the CBWTP
Outfall Diffuser Improvements Project.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port Columbia
River (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the
construction project will be a safety concern for anyone within the
designated area of the CBWTP Outfall Diffuser Improvements. The purpose
of this rule is to ensure safety of vessels and the navigable waters in
the safety zone during the scheduled construction period.

IV. Discussion of Comments, Changes, and the Rule

    As noted above, we received no comments on our NPRM published
August 22, 2021. The only changes in the regulatory text of this rule
from the proposed rule in the NPRM are the clarifying additions of
referencing the coordinates as being based on 1984 World Geodetic
System (WGS 84) and the insertion of the abbreviation ``COTP'' after
``Captain of the Port Sector Columbia River'' in the definition of
``designated representative.'' In addition, the Coast Guard received
notification on September 27, 2021, that the city of Portland is
delaying the start date of the project. The safety zone will now begin
on November 1, 2021, instead of October 1, 2021 as originally published
in the NPRM.
    This rule establishes a safety zone from 12:01 a.m. on November 1,
2021, through 11:59 p.m. on February 28, 2022. The safety zone will
cover all navigable waters of the Columbia River, surface to bottom,
approximately 300 yards to the east and west side of the Burlington
Northern Railroad Bridge on the Oregon side of the Columbia River from
the shoreline to the outside of the main navigational channel;
specifically beginning at the shoreline at 45[deg]37'26.2'' N,
122[deg]41'46.91'' W, northeast to 45[deg]37'33.206'' N,
122[deg]41'37.699'' W, southeast to 45[deg]37'23.4'' N,
122[deg]41'18.1'' W, thence southwest to 45[deg]37'16.27'' N,
122[deg]41'30.75'' W, and along the shoreline back to the beginning
point. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of
vessels and these navigable waters while the construction project is
underway. The duration of the zone is intended to ensure the safety of
vessels and these navigable waters during the construction period. No
vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without
obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this
rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, duration, and time-of-year of the safety zone. Vessel traffic
will be able to safely transit around this safety zone which will
impact a small designated area of the Columbia River during the
construction project. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue a Notice to
Mariners about the zone, and the rule will allow vessels to seek
permission to enter the zone.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard received no comments from the Small Business
Administration on this rulemaking. The Coast Guard certifies under 5
U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. While some owners or
operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small
entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
call or email the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and
Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast
Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of
a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a
safety zone lasting 150 days that will prohibit

vessel traffic to transit the area during construction operations. It
is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of
Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A
Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is
available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see
the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-
6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
00170.1, Revision No. 01.2.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T13-0647 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T13-0647  Safety Zones: Safety Zone; CBWTP Outfall Diffuser
Improvements, Columbia River, Portland, OR.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable
waters of the Columbia River, surface to bottom, encompassed by a line
connecting the following points beginning at the shoreline at
45[deg]37'26.2'' N, 122[deg]41'46.91'' W, northeast to
45[deg]37'33.206'' N, 122[deg]41'37.699'' W, southeast to
45[deg]37'23.4'' N, 122[deg]41'18.1'' W, thence southwest to
45[deg]37'16.27'' N, 122[deg]41'30.75'' W, and along the shoreline back
to the beginning point. These coordinates are based on the 1984 World
Geodetic System (WGS 84).
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section, designated representative
means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain,
petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel and a
Federal, State, and local officer designated by or assisting the
Captain of the Port Sector Columbia River (COTP) in the enforcement of
the safety zone.
    (c) Regulations. (1) Under the general safety zone regulations in
subpart C of this part, you may not enter the safety zone described in
paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the COTP or the
COTP's designated representative.
    (2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's
representative by calling<PHONE_NUMBER> or the Sector Columbia River
Command Center on Channel 16 VHF-FM. Those in the safety zone must
comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP
or the COTP's designated representative.
    (d) Enforcement period. This safety zone is in effect from 12:01
a.m. on November 1, 2021, through 11:59 p.m. on February 28, 2022. It
will be subject to enforcement this entire period unless the Captain of
the Port Columbia River determines it is no longer needed, in which
case the Coast Guard will inform mariners via Notice to Mariners.

    Dated: September 27, 2021.
M. Scott Jackson,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Columbia River.
[FR Doc. 2021-21552 Filed 10-1-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: April 4, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 64)]
[Notices]
[Page 16356-16357]
[DOCID:fr04ap07-62]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0018; FRL-8114-3]

Ethylene Oxide; Receipt of Application for Emergency Exemption,
Solicitation of Public Comment

AGENCY:  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:  Notice.

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

SUMMARY:  EPA has received a quarantine exemption request from the
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) to use the pesticide
ethylene oxide (EtO); Receipt (CAS No. 75-21-8) to sterilize the
interior surfaces of enclosed animal isolator units to control
microorganisms to create a germ free environment for research at USDA
National Veterinary Services laboratories (NVSL) and at the National
Animal Disease Center (NADC) in Ames, IA. The application proposes the
use of a pesticide containing an active ingredient which is the subject
of a Special Review. Due to the urgent nature of the emergency and the
very narrow and extremely limited use being requested, EPA has
eliminated the public comment period. Nonetheless, interested parties
may still contact the Agency with comments about this notice and
treatment program.

DATES:  Comments must be received on or before May 4, 2007.

ADDRESSES:  Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2007-0018 by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal:  http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The
Docket telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2007-0018. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-
mail. The Federal regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access''
system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through
regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and
included as part of the comment that is placed in the docket and made
available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your
comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters,
any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index
available in regulations.gov. To access the electronic docket, go to
http://www.regulations.gov, select ``Advanced Search,'' then ``Docket

Search.'' Insert the docket ID number where indicated and select the
``Submit'' button. Follow the instructions on the regulations.gov web
site to view the docket index or access available documents. Although
listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on
the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available either in the
electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only available

in hard copy, at the OPP Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One
Potomac Yard (South Bldg.), 2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA. The
hours of operation of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Princess Campbell, Registration
Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-
mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
    This listing is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. Other types of entities not listed in this unit could also be
affected. The North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS)
codes have been provided to assist you and others in determining
whether this action might apply to certain entities. If you have any
questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular
entity, consult the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    1.  Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 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 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.
    2.  Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. 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.
    iii. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. Background

What Action is the Agency Taking?

    Under section 18 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) (7 U.S.C. 136p), at the discretion of the
Administrator, a Federal or State agency may be exempted from any
provision of FIFRA if the Administrator determines that emergency
conditions exist which require the exemption. USDA has requested the
Administrator to issue a quarantine exemption for the use of EtO on the
interior surfaces of enclosed animal isolator units to inactivate forms
of microbial life in an inanimate environment, including all forms of
vegetative bacteria, bacterial spores, fungi, fungal spores, and
viruses to create a germ free environment for animal research.
Information in accordance with 40 CFR part 166 was submitted as part of
this request.
    As part of this request, the Applicant asserts that there are no
control products labeled for this use on animal isolator units which
could provide the degree of sterilization required for the conduct of
this research. Without the ability to sterilize the animal isolator
units, NVSL and NADC would not be able to conduct studies of national
importance.
    The Applicant proposes to make no more than 20 applications of the
chemical per year, using the EPA registered product Oxyfume[reg] 2002
ethylene oxide sterilant (a blend of 10% ethylene oxide; 90%
refrigerant gas), to sterilize a maximum of nine tub isolators for
pigs, nine auxiliary isolators that attach to the tub isolators for
pigs, two tub isolators for calves and two auxiliary isolators that
attach to the tub isolators for calves. A total of five pounds of the
chemical mixture will be used to sterilize each animal isolator unit
for a maximum of 1,000 lbs of Oxyfume[reg] 2002 per year. A maximum of
100 lbs a.i. will be applied per year. The chemical will be used to
sterilize the animal isolator units on an as needed basis to conduct
research at NVSL and NADC over the period for which the quarantine
exemption will be granted (3 years).
    The regulations governing section 18 of FIFRA require publication
of a Notice of Receipt of an application for a quarantine exemption
under certain circumstances. The applicant proposes the use of a
pesticide containing an active ingredient which is the subject of a
Special Review and that is one of the criteria for preparing a Notice
of Receipt for certain emergency exemption requests (40 CFR 166.24). As
noted above, the Agency has eliminated the comment period due to the
urgent nature of the emergency situation and the very narrow and
extremely limited use being requested. Nonetheless, interested parties
may still contact the Agency with comments about this notice and
treatment program.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.

    Dated: March 27, 2007.
Daniel J. Rosenblatt,
Acting Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. E7-6249 Filed 4-3-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 90 (Tuesday, May 10, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 26933-26938]
[FR Doc No: 2011-11218]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2010-0996, A-1-FRL9286-4]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Connecticut:
Prevention of Significant Deterioration; Greenhouse Gas Permitting
Authority and Tailoring Rule Revision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to approve a revision to the State
Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted by Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP) to EPA on December 9, 2010, for parallel
processing. DEP submitted the final version of this SIP revision on
February 9, 2011. The SIP revision, which incorporates updates to DEP's
air quality regulations, includes two significant changes impacting the
regulation of greenhouse gases (GHG) under Connecticut's New Source
Review (NSR) Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program.
First, the revision provides Connecticut with authority to issue PSD
permits governing GHG. Second, the SIP revision establishes appropriate
emission thresholds for determining which new stationary sources and
modification projects become subject to Connecticut's PSD permitting
requirements for their GHG emissions. The first change is necessary
because Connecticut is required to apply its PSD program to GHG-
emitting sources, and unless it does so (or unless EPA promulgates a
federal implementation plan (FIP) to do so), such sources will be
unable to receive preconstruction permits and therefore may not be able
to construct or modify. The second change is necessary, because without
it, PSD requirements would apply at the 100 or 250 ton per year (tpy)
levels otherwise provided under the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act), which
would overwhelm Connecticut's permitting resources. EPA is approving
Connecticut's February 9, 2011, SIP revision because the Agency has
made the determination that this SIP revision is in accordance with the
CAA and EPA regulations, including regulations pertaining to PSD
permitting for GHG. Additionally, EPA is responding to adverse comments
received on EPA's January 6, 2011, proposed approval of Connecticut's
December 9, 2010, SIP revision.

DATES: Effective Date: This rule will be effective May 10, 2011.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R01-OAR-2010-0996. All documents in the docket
are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed
in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e.,
Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New
England Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air Permits,
Toxics, and Indoor Air Programs Unit, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100,
Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for
further information. The Regional Office's official hours of business
are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information regarding the
Connecticut SIP, contact Donald Dahl, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem
Protection, Air Permits, Toxics, and Indoor Programs Unit, 5 Post
Office Square--Suite 100, (mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912.
Mr. Dahl's telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What is the background for this final action?
II. Analysis of Connecticut's SIP Revision
III. What is EPA's response to comments received on this action?
IV. What is the effect of this final action?
V. When is this action effective?
VI. Final Action
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is the background for this final action?

    EPA has recently undertaken a series of actions pertaining to the
regulation of GHG that, although for the most part distinct from one
another, establish the overall framework for today's final action for
the Connecticut SIP. The first four of these actions include, as they
are commonly called, the ``Endangerment Finding'' and ``Cause or
Contribute Finding,'' which EPA issued in a single final action,\1\ the
``Johnson Memo Reconsideration,'' \2\ the ``Light-Duty Vehicle Rule,''
\3\ and the ``Tailoring Rule.'' \4\ Taken together, these actions
established regulatory requirements for GHG emitted from new motor
vehicles and new motor vehicle engines; determined that such
regulations, when they took effect on January 2, 2011, will subject GHG
emitted from stationary sources to PSD requirements; and limited the
applicability of PSD requirements to GHG sources on a phased-in basis.
In a separate action, EPA called on the State of Connecticut and 12
other states with SIPs that do not provide authority to issue PSD
permits governing GHG to revise their SIPs to provide such authority
(the ``GHG PSD SIP Call'').\5\ EPA established a deadline of March 1,
2011, for Connecticut to submit its GHG PSD SIP. Finally, in the most
recent action, EPA proposed to implement a FIP authorizing PSD
permitting for GHG for those states that are unable to revise their
SIPs to provide that authority by the applicable deadline (the ``GHG
PSD FIP'').\6\ By a notice signed December 23, 2010, EPA finalized the
FIP for seven states: Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Kansas,
Oregon, and Wyoming.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ ``Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for
Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act.'' 74 FR
66496 (December 15, 2009).
    \2\ ``Interpretation of Regulations that Determine Pollutants
Covered by Clean Air Act Permitting Programs.'' 75 FR 17004 (April
2, 2010).
    \3\ ``Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards and
Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards; Final Rule.'' 75 FR 25324
(May 7, 2010).
    \4\ Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V
Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule; Final Rule.'' 75 FR 31514 (June 3,
2010).
    \5\ ``Action to Ensure Authority to Issue Permits Under the
Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program to Sources of
Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Finding of Substantial Inadequacy and SIP
Call: Final Rule.'' 75 FR 77698 (December 13, 2010).
    \6\ ``Action to Ensure Authority to Issue Permits Under the
Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program to Sources of
Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Federal Implementation Plan: Proposed
Rule.'' 75 FR 53883 (September 2, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 9, 2010, in response to the Tailoring Rule and earlier
GHG-related EPA rules, and in anticipation of the GHG PSD SIP Call
rulemaking, DEP submitted a draft revision to EPA for approval into the
Connecticut SIP to: (1) Provide the State with the authority to
regulate GHG under its PSD program; and (2) establish appropriate
emission thresholds for determining which new or modified stationary
sources become subject to Connecticut's PSD permitting requirements for
GHG emissions. Subsequently, on January 6, 2011, EPA published a
proposed rulemaking to approve Connecticut's December 9, 2010, draft
SIP revision under parallel processing. 76 FR 752. Specifically,
Connecticut's December 9, 2010 draft SIP revision includes changes to
Sections 22a-174-1 and 22a-174-3a of the Regulations of Connecticut
State Agencies.\7\ The changes include adopting definitions of
greenhouse gases and carbon dioxide equivalent and applying the
Tailoring Rule's thresholds for GHG permitting applicability. Detailed
background information and EPA's rationale for the proposed approval
are provided in EPA's January 6, 2011, Federal Register notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Connecticut's submittal also revises Section 22a-174-33;
however, this section relates to the state's title V operating
permit program and it is not the state's intention to incorporate
any provision of this program into the SIP. As such, EPA is not
taking final action to approve Connecticut's changes to Section 22a-
174-33 in this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's January 6, 2011, proposed approval was contingent upon the
State of Connecticut providing a final SIP revision that was
substantively the same as the revision proposed for approval by EPA in
the January 6, 2011, proposed rulemaking. 76 FR 752. Connecticut
provided its final SIP revision on February 9, 2011. While there are
minor differences between the draft and final regulations, mainly to
the format of internal references, EPA has determined that these
differences do not warrant re-proposal of this action. The changes are
mostly edits to the format for internal references within the
regulation, e.g. changing ``Table 3a(k)(1)'' to ``Table 3a(k)(1) of
this subsection,'' plus one minor edit designed to clarify the original
intent of the formula for calculating ``carbon dioxide equivalent
emissions.'' See Memorandum from the Connecticut Commissioners' Office
to the Connecticut Legislative Regulation Review Committee at 2 (Jan.
25, 2011).

II. Analysis of Connecticut's SIP Revision

    Section 110(k)(3) of the CAA provides that EPA shall approve a SIP
revision as a whole if it meets all of the applicable requirements of
the CAA. Connecticut received a SIP call because its PSD program does
not apply to GHG. As a result, Connecticut is required to submit a SIP
revision that applies PSD to GHG and do so either at the Tailoring Rule
thresholds or at lower thresholds. Connecticut is required to
demonstrate that it has adequate resources for implementation if the
state establishes lower thresholds.
    Connecticut has submitted a SIP revision that provides this
authority. Connecticut's SIP revision adopts new definitions for
``carbon dioxide equivalent emissions'' and ``greenhouse gases'' into
section 22a-174-1. These new definitions were necessary because the
state's definition of air pollutant excluded carbon dioxide except for
certain state rules. Connecticut's PSD regulation, found in section
22a-174-3a, is not one of the excepted rules.
    To fully implement EPA's Tailoring Rule, Connecticut amended
several subsections in section 22a-174-3a. Section 22a-174-3a contains
the state's permitting requirements for minor new source review, PSD,
and nonattainment new source review. Subsections amended were
subsection (1) which adds GHG emission thresholds to the general
applicability section, subsection (d)(3)(H) which requires the
applicant to incorporate best available control technology (BACT) for
GHG emissions, subsection (j) which establishes the thresholds for GHG
emissions for applying BACT, and subsection (k) which establishes GHG
emission thresholds for PSD permitting. Connecticut has adopted the
thresholds contained in EPA's Tailoring Rule for all of the thresholds
established in the individual subsections. Connecticut did not choose
to establish a lower threshold than required by the Tailoring Rule.
    EPA has determined these changes to Connecticut's regulations meet
the requirements of the SIP call. Thus these changes are consistent
with the CAA and its implementing regulations regarding PSD permit
requirements for GHG emissions. The thresholds for permitting GHG
emissions established in this submittal are the same as EPA's Tailoring
Rule, and therefore comply with the requirements of the SIP call.

III. What is EPA's response to comments received on this action?

    EPA received two sets of comments on the January 6, 2011, proposed
rulemaking to approve revisions to Connecticut's SIP. One set of
comments, provided by the Sierra Club, was in favor of EPA's January 6,
2011 proposed action. The other set of comments, provided by the Air
Permitting Forum, raised concerns with final action on EPA's January 6,
2011 proposed action. A full set of the comments provided by both the
Sierra Club and Air Permitting Forum (hereinafter referred to as ``the
Commenter'') is provided in the docket for today's final action. A
summary of the adverse comments and EPA's responses are provided below.
    Generally, the adverse comments fall into five categories. First,
the Commenter asserts that EPA's SIP Call was unauthorized and imposed
too short a deadline for Connecticut to act to revise its SIP. Second,
the Commenter asserts that PSD requirements cannot be triggered by GHG.
Third, the Commenter expresses concerns regarding EPA's previously
announced intention to narrow its prior approval of some SIPs to ensure
that sources with GHG emissions that are less than the Tailoring Rule's
thresholds will not be obligated under federal law to obtain PSD
permits prior to a SIP revision incorporating those thresholds. The
Commenter explains that the planned SIP approval narrowing action is
inapplicable to this action and, if applicable, is illegal. Fourth, the
Commenter states that EPA has failed to meet applicable statutory and
executive order review requirements. Lastly, the Commenter states:
``EPA should explicitly state in any final rule that the continued
enforceability of these provisions in the Connecticut SIP is limited to
the extent to which the federal requirements remain enforceable.''
EPA's response to these five categories of comments is provided below.
    Comment 1: The first comment asserts that EPA's SIP Call was
unauthorized and imposed too short a deadline for Connecticut to act to
revise its SIP. This is because, according to the Commenter, the recent
Cinergy decision allows sources in the State to rely on the provisions
of the currently approved PSD SIP to obtain permits for construction or
modification. United States v. Cinergy Corp., 623 F.3d 455 (7th Cir.
2010).
    Response 1: EPA established the requirement that Connecticut submit
a corrective SIP revision to provide for the authority to issue PSD
permits for GHG emissions in the GHG PSD SIP call rulemaking. As part
of that rulemaking, EPA allowed states to choose not to object to a
short timeframe for amending their SIPs, and the deadline established
for submitting Connecticut's PSD SIP revision is the date requested by
the State. EPA has not reopened either of these issues in the current
rulemaking. The only issues relevant to this rulemaking concern whether
Connecticut's SIP submission meets the requirements of the SIP call and
therefore should be approved. Issues concerning the validity of the SIP
call and the deadlines it established, including the comments raised by
the commenter, may have been relevant for the SIP call rulemaking but
are not relevant for this rulemaking. Accordingly, these comments are
not relevant for this rulemaking.
    In any event, EPA disagrees with the comment and the Commenter's
interpretation of the Cinergy decision. EPA specifically discussed the
Cinergy decision in the SIP call itself, 75 FR 77705-06 n.16. As we
stated in the SIP call, EPA has long interpreted the PSD applicability
provisions in the CAA to be self-executing,\8\ that is, they apply by
their terms so that a source that emits any air pollutant subject to
regulation becomes subject to PSD--and, therefore, cannot construct or
modify without obtaining a PSD permit--and these provisions apply by
their terms in this manner regardless of whether the state has an
approved SIP PSD program. What's more, until an applicable
implementation plan is in place--either an approved SIP or a FIP--no
permitting authority is authorized to issue a permit to the source. In
the recent Cinergy decision, the 7th Circuit confronted a case that, at
the district court level, involved both nonattainment NSR and PSD
claims, with the appeal involving substantive nonattainment NSR issues
and evidentiary PSD issues. However, in its opinion, the 7th Circuit
described the substantive nonattainment NSR issue as if it applied to
both nonattainment NSR and PSD. On that issue, the Court held that
sources could continue to abide by permitting requirements in an
existing SIP until amended, even if that SIP does not comport with the
law. Again, notwithstanding the Court's broader description of the
case, that holding applied only to the nonattainment NSR claims
because, again, only those claims were before it on that issue. United
States v. Cinergy Corp., 623 F.3d 455 (7th Cir. 2010). In stark
contrast to the nonattainment provisions actually at issue in Cinergy--
which are not self-executing and must therefore be enforced through a
SIP--PSD is self-executing; it is the statute (CAA section 165), not
just the SIP, that prohibits a source from constructing a project
without a permit issued in accordance with the Clean Air Act. Because
the PSD provisions were simply not before the Cinergy Court in the
appeal on this issue, the commenter's reading of that portion of the
opinion to apply to PSD is in error. As the commenter noted, in a
petition for rehearing that was primarily devoted to other issues, EPA
asked the Court to revise its opinion to make clear that its holding on
the relevant issue was limited to the nonattainment provisions in play
on that issue. The Court denied the petition for rehearing and,
accordingly, did not revise its opinion. However, the Court did not
explain its reasons for denying the petition for rehearing, and
therefore did not address why it would not revise its opinion. We note
that Cinergy, in its response to EPA's petition for reconsideration,
did not contest that the relevant issue concerned only the
nonattainment provisions, and not the PSD provisions. Accordingly, we
do not read the Court's denial of the petition for rehearing as any
kind of affirmation that in the Court's view, its decision on the
relevant issue extends beyond the nonattainment provisions in play on
that issue. Further, we believe that the fact that all of the parties
to the case recognized that only the nonattainment provisions were in
play on the relevant issue could explain the Court's denial of EPA's
request to revise the opinion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ EPA is likewise also not reopening this issue in this
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 2: The Commenter asserts that PSD requirements cannot be
triggered by GHG. In its letter, the Commenter states: ``[n]o area in
the State of Connecticut has been designated attainment or
unclassifiable for greenhouse gases (GHGs), as there is no national
ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for GHGs. Therefore, GHGs cannot
trigger PSD permitting requirements.'' The Commenter notes that it made
this argument in detail in comments submitted to EPA on the Tailoring
Rule and other related GHG rulemakings.\9\ Finally, the Commenter
states that ``EPA should immediately provide notice that it is now
interpreting the Act not to require that GHGs trigger PSD and allow

Connecticut to rescind that portion of its rules and implement the
program consistent with the proper interpretation such that GHGs do not
trigger PSD permitting * * *''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Commenter recited that it had attached those previously
submitted comments to its comments on the proposed rulemaking
related to this action, although it appears they were neither
attached nor forwarded to the docket for this action. Nevertheless,
EPA is aware of the Commenter's prior comments and, as explained
below, does not find them persuasive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response 2: EPA established the requirement that PSD applies to all
pollutants newly subject to regulation, including non-NAAQS pollutants,
in earlier national rulemakings concerning the PSD program, and EPA has
not re-opened that issue in this rulemaking. Accordingly, these
comments are not relevant to this rulemaking and are time-barred as to
the earlier national rulemakings. In addition, EPA has explained in
detail, in recent rulemakings concerning GHG PSD requirements, its
reasons for disagreeing with these comments.
    In an August 7, 1980, rulemaking at 45 FR 52676, 45 FR 52710-52712,
and 45 FR 52735, EPA stated that a ``major stationary source'' was one
that emitted ``any air pollutant subject to regulation under the Act''
at or above the specified numerical thresholds, and defined a ``major
modification,'' in general, as a physical or operational change that
increased emissions of ``any pollutant subject to regulation under the
Act'' by more than an amount that EPA variously termed as de minimis or
significant. In addition, in EPA's NSR Reform rule at 67 FR 80186 and
67 FR 80240 (December 31, 2002), EPA added to the PSD regulations the
new definition of ``regulated NSR pollutant'' (currently codified at 40
CFR 52.21(b)(50) and 40 CFR 51.166(a)(49)), noted that EPA added this
term based on a request from a commenter to ``clarify which pollutants
are covered under the PSD program,'' and explained that in addition to
criteria pollutants for which a NAAQS has been established, ``[t]he PSD
program applies automatically to newly regulated NSR pollutants, which
would include final promulgation of an NSPS [new source performance
standard] applicable to a previously unregulated pollutant.'' Id. at 67
FR 80240 and 67 FR 80264. Among other things, the definition of
``regulated NSR pollutant'' includes ``[a]ny pollutant that otherwise
is subject to regulation under the Act.'' See 40 CFR
52.21(b)(50)(d)(iv); see also 40 CFR 51.166(a)(49)(iv).
    In any event, EPA disagrees with the Commenter's underlying premise
that PSD requirements are not triggered for GHG when GHG became subject
to regulation as of January 2, 2011. As just noted, this has been well-
established and discussed in connection with prior EPA actions,
including, most recently, the Johnson Memo Reconsideration and the
Tailoring Rule. In addition, EPA's November 18, 2010, proposed
rulemaking notice provides the general basis for the Agency's rationale
that GHG, while not a NAAQS pollutant, can trigger PSD permitting
requirements. The November 18, 2010, notice also refers the reader to
the preamble to the Tailoring Rule for further information on this
rationale. In that rulemaking, EPA addressed at length the comment that
PSD can be triggered only by pollutants subject to the NAAQS and
concluded that such an interpretation of the Act would contravene
Congress's unambiguous intent. See 75 FR 31560-31562. Further
discussion of EPA's rationale for concluding that PSD requirements are
triggered by non-NAAQS pollutants such as GHG appears in the Tailoring
Rule Response to Comments document (``Prevention of Significant
Deterioration and Title V GHG Tailoring Rule: EPA's Response to Public
Comments''), pp. 34-41; and in EPA's response to motions for a stay
filed in the litigation concerning those rules (``EPA's Response to
Motions for Stay,'' Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA, DC
Cir. No. 09-1322 (and consolidated cases)), at pp. 47-59, and are
incorporated by reference here. These documents have been placed in the
docket for today's action.
    Comment 3: The Commenter expresses concerns regarding the legality
of narrowing prior SIP approvals if states cannot interpret their
regulations to include the Tailoring Rule thresholds within the phrase
``subject to regulation.''
    Response 3: While EPA does not agree with the Commenter's assertion
that the narrowing approach discussed in EPA's Tailoring Rule is
illegal, the validity of the narrowing approach is irrelevant to the
action that EPA is today taking for Connecticut's February 9, 2011, SIP
revision. EPA did not propose to narrow its approval of Connecticut's
SIP as part of this action, and in today's final action, EPA is acting
to approve a SIP revision submitted by Connecticut and is not otherwise
narrowing its approval of prior submitted and approved provisions in
the Connecticut SIP. Accordingly, the legality of the narrowing
approach is not at issue in this rulemaking.
    Comment 4: The Commenter states that EPA has failed to meet
applicable statutory and executive order review requirements.
Specifically, the Commenter refers to the statutory requirements and
executive orders for the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (RFA), the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, and Executive
Orders 12866 (OMB review of significant regulatory actions), 13175
(tribal implications), 13211 (economically significant regulatory
action), and 13132 (Federalism). Additionally, the Commenter mentions
that EPA has never analyzed the costs and benefits associated with
triggering PSD for stationary sources in Connecticut, much less
nationwide.
    Response 4: EPA disagrees with the Commenter's statement that EPA
has failed to meet applicable statutory and executive order review
requirements. As stated in EPA's proposed approval of Connecticut's
December 9, 2010 proposed SIP revision, this action merely approves
state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly,
EPA approval, in and of itself, does not impose any new information
collection burden, as defined in 5 CFR 1320.3(b) and (c), that would
require additional review under the Paperwork Reduction Act. In
addition, this SIP approval will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities, beyond that which would be
required by the state law requirements, so a regulatory flexibility
analysis is not required under the RFA. Accordingly, this rule is
appropriately certified under section 605(b) of the RFA. Moreover, as
this action approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandates or significantly
or uniquely affect small governments, such that it would be subject to
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. In addition, this rule does not have
tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian
country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
Finally, this action does not have federalism implications that would
make Executive Order 13132 applicable, because it merely approves a
state rule implementing a federal standard and does not alter the
relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities
established in the CAA.
    Today's rule is a routine approval of a SIP revision, approving
state law, and does not impose any requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. To the extent these comments are directed more generally to
the application of the statutory and executive order reviews to the
required regulation of GHG under PSD programs, these comments are
irrelevant to the approval of state law in

today's action. However, EPA provided an extensive response to similar
comments in promulgating the Tailoring Rule. EPA refers the Commenter
to the sections in the Tailoring Rule entitled ``VII. Comments on
Statutory and Executive Order Reviews,'' 75 FR 31601-31603, and ``VI.
What are the economic impacts of the final rule?,'' 75 FR 31595-31601.
EPA also notes that today's action does not in and of itself trigger
the regulation of GHG. To the contrary, GHG are already being regulated
nationally, and sources in Connecticut that are subject to the PSD
program are required to obtain a permit from a PSD program that
addresses GHG emissions consistent with the Act's requirements. Today's
action simply approves existing state laws that provide such a PSD
program.
    Comment 5: The Commenter states that ``EPA should explicitly state
in any final rule that the continued enforceability of these provisions
in the Connecticut SIP is limited to the extent to which the federal
requirements remain enforceable.'' Further, the Commenter remarks on
the ongoing litigation in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit.
Specifically, regarding EPA's determination that PSD can be triggered
by GHG or is applicable to GHG, the Commenter mentions that ``if the DC
Circuit and/or Supreme Court determine that EPA's approach to
regulating GHGs under the PSD program is invalid, the Connecticut rules
should be approved in a manner that they would automatically sunset.''
    Response 5: EPA believes that it is most appropriate to take
actions that are consistent with the federal regulations that are in
place at the time the action is being taken. To the extent that any
changes to federal regulations related to today's action result from
pending legal challenges or other actions, EPA will process appropriate
SIP revisions in accordance with the procedures provided in the Act and
EPA's regulations. EPA notes that in an order dated December 10, 2010,
the United States Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit denied motions to
stay EPA's regulatory actions related to GHG. Coalition for Responsible
Regulation, Inc. v. EPA, Nos. 09-1322, 10-1073, 10-1092 (and
consolidated cases), Slip Op. at 3 (D.C. Cir. December 10, 2010) (order
denying stay motions).

IV. What is the effect of this final action?

    Final approval of Connecticut's February 9, 2011 SIP revision will
make Connecticut's SIP adequate with respect to PSD requirements for
GHG-emitting sources, thereby negating the need for a GHG PSD FIP.
Furthermore, final approval of Connecticut's SIP revision will put in
place the GHG emission thresholds for PSD applicability set forth in
EPA's Tailoring Rule (75 FR 31514, June 3, 2010), ensuring that smaller
GHG sources emitting less than these thresholds will not be subject to
permitting requirements. Pursuant to section 110 of the CAA, EPA is
approving changes made in Connecticut's February 9, 2011, proposed SIP
revision into the State's SIP.
    The changes to Connecticut's SIP-approved PSD program that EPA is
approving today are to Connecticut's rules which have been formatted to
conform to Connecticut's rule drafting standards for Sections 22a-174-1
and 3a, but in substantive content the rules that address the Tailoring
Rule provisions are the same as the federal rules. As part of its
review of the Connecticut submittal, EPA performed a line-by-line
review of Connecticut's proposed SIP changes and has determined that
the provisions that EPA is approving today are consistent with the
Tailoring Rule. Furthermore, EPA has determined that the February 9,
2011, revision to Connecticut's SIP is consistent with section 110 of
the CAA. See, e.g., Tailoring Rule, at 75 FR 31561.

V. When is this action effective?

    The effective date of today's final action is the date that this
notice is published in the Federal Register. In accordance with 5
U.S.C. 553(d), EPA finds there is good cause for this action to become
effective on the date of publication. The effective date upon
publication of this notice for this action is authorized under 5 U.S.C.
553(d)(3), which allows an effective date less than 30 days after
publication ``as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found
and published with the rule.'' The purpose of the 30-day waiting period
prescribed in section 553(d) is to give affected parties a reasonable
time to adjust their behavior and prepare before the final rule takes
effect. Today's rule, however, does not create any new regulatory
requirements such that affected parties would need time to prepare
before the rule takes effect. Rather, today's rule provides sources
emitting GHG at or above the higher emissions thresholds with a
permitting authority from which it can seek the permits which, prior to
this rule, federal law already required them to seek, and relieves the
sources within the State from considering the lower emissions
thresholds for GHG permitting purposes. For these reasons, EPA finds
good cause under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) for this action to become effective
immediately upon publication.

VI. Final Action

    EPA is taking final action to approve the State of Connecticut's
February 9, 2011 SIP revision, which includes updates to Connecticut's
air quality regulations, sections 22a-174-1 and 22a-174-3a relating to
PSD requirements for GHG-emitting sources. Significantly, Connecticut's
February 9, 2011, SIP revision: (1) Provides the State with the
authority to regulate GHG under its PSD program, and (2) establishes
appropriate emissions thresholds for determining PSD applicability with
respect to new or modified GHG-emitting sources in accordance with
EPA's Tailoring Rule. EPA has made the determination that the February
9, 2011 SIP revision is approvable because it is in accordance with the
CAA and EPA regulations, including regulations pertaining to PSD
permitting for GHG.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or

safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by July 11, 2011. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Greenhouse gases,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, and Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: March 15, 2011.

    For H. Curtis Spalding,
Ira W. Leighton,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA New England.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart H--Connecticut

0
2. Section 52.370 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(99) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.370  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (99) Revisions to the State Implementation Plan submitted by the
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection on February 9, 2011.
    (i) Incorporation by reference. (A) The additions of subsections
(21) and (49) to Section 22a-174-1, effective January 28, 2011.
    (B) The revisions to Sections 22a-174-3a(a)(1)(H) through (J),
Sections 22a-174-3a(d)(3)(H), Sections 22a-174-3a(j)(1)(E) through (I),
Sections 22a-174-3a(k)(1) through (k)(2), and Sections 22a-174-
3a(k)(4), effective January 28, 2011.

[FR Doc. 2011-11218 Filed 5-9-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P