[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 122 (Tuesday, June 25, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38095-38096]
[FR Doc No: 2013-15177]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2013-0018]

Request for Comments of a Previously Approved Information
Collection

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this notice announces that the Information
Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below is being forwarded to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comments. A
Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting
comments on the following information collection was published on
February 15, 2013 (78 FR 11271).

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before July 25, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shirlene Ball, NHTSA 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE., W51-217, NPO 420, Washington, DC 20590. Mrs. Ball's
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: Air Bag Deactivation.
    OMB Control Number: 2127-0588.
    Affected Public: Private individuals, fleet owners and lessees,
motor vehicle dealers, repair business.
    Abstract: If a private individual or lessee wants to install an air
bag on-off switch to turn-off either or both frontal air bags, they
must complete Form OMB 2127-0588 to certify certain statements
regarding use of the switch. The dealer or business must, in turn,
submit the completed forms to NHTSA within seven days. The submission
of the completed forms by the dealers and repair business to NHTSA, as
required, will serve the agency several purposes. They will aid the
agency in monitoring the number of authorization requests submitted and
the pattern in claims of risk group membership. The completed forms
will enable the agency to determine whether the dealers and repair
business are complying with the terms of the exemption, which include a
requirement that the dealers and repair businesses accept only fully
completed forms. Finally, submission of the completed forms to the
agency will promote honesty and accuracy in the filling out of the
forms by vehicle owners. The air bag on-off switches are installed only
in vehicles in which the risk of harm needs to be minimized on a case-
by-case basis.
    Estimated Annual Burden: 375 hours.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 750.
ADDRESSES: Send comments regarding the burden estimate, including
suggestions for reducing the burden, to the Office of Management and
Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Office of the Secretary of
Transportation, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503.
    Comments are invited on: Whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Department, including whether the information will have practical
utility; the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of the
proposed information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility
and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize
the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including
the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of
information technology.

    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1:48.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 20, 2013.
Kevin Mahoney,
Director, Corporate Customer Services.
[FR Doc. 2013-15177 Filed 6-24-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register: January 3, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 1)]
[Notices]
[Page 159]
[DOCID:fr03ja06-106]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Sunshine Act Meeting

    Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the
Government in the Sunshine Act, Public Law 94-409, that the Securities
and Exchange Commission will hold the following meeting during the week
of January 2, 2006:
    A Closed Meeting will be held on Thursday, January 5, 2006 at 2
p.m.
    Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the
Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the Closed Meeting.
Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters may also be
present.
    The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has
certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth
in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (7), (9)(B), and (10) and 17 CFR
200.402(a), (3), (5), (7), 9(ii) and (10) permit consideration of the
scheduled matters at the Closed Meeting.
    Commissioner Atkins, as duty officer, voted to consider the items
listed for the closed meeting in closed session.
    The subject matter of the Closed Meeting scheduled for Thursday,
January 5, 2006 will be:
    Formal orders of investigations;
    Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
    Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings of an
enforcement nature;
    Regulatory matter involving a financial institution;
    Amicus consideration; and an
Opinion.
    At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in
the scheduling of meeting items.
    For further information and to ascertain what, if any, matters have
been added, deleted or postponed, please contact: The Office of the
Secretary at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: December 29, 2005.
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 05-24702 Filed 12-29-05; 3:49 pm]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 78 (Friday, April 22, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 24090-24092]
[FR Doc No: 2022-07529]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[R2-OAR-2021-0912; FRL-9613-01-R2]

Approval of Air Quality Implementation Plans; New Jersey; Removal
of Excess Emissions Provision

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
State of New Jersey, through the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection, on December 14, 2017. The revision submitted by New Jersey
was in response to a finding of substantial inadequacy and a SIP call
published on June 12, 2015, for a provision in the New Jersey SIP
related to excess emissions during startup, shutdown, and malfunction
(SSM) events. EPA is proposing approval of the SIP revision and
proposing to determine that such SIP revision corrects the deficiency
identified in the June 12, 2015, SIP call.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 23, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R02-
OAR-2021-0912 at https://www.regulations.gov. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential
Business Information (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. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not electronically submit any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information, the
disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions
(audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The
written comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance
on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward J. Linky, EPA Region 2, 290
Broadway, 25th floor, New York, New York 10007-1866, at<PHONE_NUMBER>;
or email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we'' or
``our'' is used, it refers to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Analysis of SIP Submission
III. Proposed Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

I. Background

    On February 22, 2013, EPA issued a Federal Register notice of
proposed rulemaking outlining EPA's policy at the time with respect to
SIP provisions related to periods of SSM. EPA analyzed specific SSM SIP
provisions and explained how each one either did or did not comply with
the Clean Air Act (CAA) with regard to excess emission events.\1\ For
each SIP provision that EPA determined to be inconsistent with the CAA,
EPA proposed to find that the existing SIP provision was substantially
inadequate to meet CAA requirements and thus proposed to issue a SIP
call under CAA section 110(k)(5). On September 17, 2014, EPA issued a
document supplementing and revising what the Agency had previously
proposed on February 22, 2013, in light of a D.C. Circuit decision that
determined the CAA precludes authority of EPA to create affirmative
defense provisions applicable to private civil suits. EPA outlined its
updated policy that affirmative defense SIP provisions are not
consistent with CAA requirements. EPA proposed in the supplemental
proposal document to apply its revised interpretation of the CAA to
specific affirmative defense SIP

provisions and proposed SIP calls for those provisions where
appropriate (79 FR 55920, September 17, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ State Implementation Plans: Response to Petition for
Rulemaking; Findings of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls To
Amend Provisions Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of
Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction, 78 FR 12460 (Feb. 22, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 12, 2015, pursuant to CAA section 110(k)(5), EPA finalized
``State Implementation Plans: Response to Petition for Rulemaking;
Restatement and Update of EPA's SSM Policy Applicable to SIPs; Findings
of Substantial Inadequacy; and SIP Calls To Amend Provisions Applying
to Excess Emissions During Periods of Startup, Shutdown and
Malfunction,'' (80 FR 33839, June 12, 2015), hereafter referred to as
the ``2015 SSM SIP Action.'' The 2015 SSM SIP Action clarified,
restated, and updated EPA's interpretation that SSM exemption and
affirmative defense SIP provisions are inconsistent with CAA
requirements. The 2015 SSM SIP Action found that certain SIP provisions
in 36 states were substantially inadequate to meet CAA requirements and
issued a SIP call to those states to submit SIP revisions to address
the inadequacies. EPA established an 18-month deadline by which the
affected states had to submit such SIP revisions. States were required
to submit corrective revisions to their SIPs in response to the SIP
calls by November 22, 2016. The detailed rationale for issuing the SIP
call to New Jersey can be found in the 2015 SSM SIP Action and
preceding proposed actions.
    EPA issued a Memorandum in October 2020 (2020 Memorandum), which
stated that certain provisions governing SSM periods in SIPs could be
viewed as consistent with CAA requirements.\2\ Importantly, the 2020
Memorandum stated that it ``did not alter in any way the determinations
made in the 2015 SSM SIP Action that identified specific state SIP
provisions that were substantially inadequate to meet the requirements
of the Act.'' Accordingly, the 2020 Memorandum had no direct impact on
the SIP call issued to New Jersey in 2015. The 2020 Memorandum did,
however, indicate EPA's intent at the time to review SIP calls that
were issued in the 2015 SSM SIP Action to determine whether EPA should
maintain, modify, or withdraw particular SIP calls through future
agency actions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ October 9, 2020, memorandum ``Inclusion of Provisions
Governing Periods of Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunctions in State
Implementation Plans,'' from Andrew R. Wheeler, Administrator.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 30, 2021, EPA's Deputy Administrator withdrew the 2020
Memorandum and announced EPA's return to the policy articulated in the
2015 SSM SIP Action (2021 Memorandum).\3\ As articulated in the 2021
Memorandum, SIP provisions that contain exemptions or affirmative
defense provisions are not consistent with CAA requirements and,
therefore, generally are not approvable if contained in a SIP
submission. This policy approach is intended to ensure that all
communities and populations, including minority, low-income and
indigenous populations overburdened by air pollution, receive the full
health and environmental protections provided by the CAA.\4\ The 2021
Memorandum also retracted the prior statement from the 2020 Memorandum
of EPA's plans to review and potentially modify or withdraw particular
SIP calls. That statement no longer reflects EPA's intent. EPA intends
to implement the principles laid out in the 2015 SSM SIP Action as the
agency takes action on SIP submissions, including this SIP submittal
provided in response to the 2015 SIP call.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ September 30, 2021, memorandum ``Withdrawal of the October
9, 2020, Memorandum Addressing Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunctions
in State Implementation Plans and Implementation of the Prior
Policy,'' from Janet McCabe, Deputy Administrator.
    \4\ 80 FR 33840, June 12, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to the New Jersey SIP, in the 2015 SSM SIP Action EPA
determined that N.J. Admin. Code 7:27-7.2(k)(2) was substantially
inadequate to meet CAA requirements (80 FR 33960). The provision
provided industrial process units that have the potential to emit
sulfur compounds an exemption from the otherwise applicable sulfur
emission limitations where ``the discharge from any stack or chimney
[has] the sole function of relieving pressure of gas, vapor or liquid
under abnormal emergency conditions'' (N.J. Admin. Code 7:27-
7.2(k)(2)). The rationale underlying EPA's determination that the
provision was substantially inadequate to meet CAA requirements, and
therefore to issue a SIP call to New Jersey to remedy the provision, is
detailed in the 2015 SSM SIP Action and the accompanying proposals.
    New Jersey submitted a SIP revision on December 14, 2017, in
response to the SIP call issued in the 2015 SSM SIP Action. In its
submission, New Jersey is requesting that EPA approve a revised N.J.
Admin. Code 7:27-7.2(k), which deletes N.J. Admin. Code 7:27-7.2(k)(2)
in its entirety, thereby removing the provision for which EPA issued a
SIP call in 2015 from the New Jersey SIP. The December 14, 2017, SIP
submittal also includes proposed revisions to other portions of the New
Jersey SIP which will be addressed in a separate rulemaking action.

II. Analysis of SIP Submission

    EPA is proposing to approve New Jersey's December 14, 2017, SIP
submission with respect to N.J. Admin. Code 7:27-7.2(k), which would
remove the SIP called provision, N.J. Admin. Code 7:27-7.2(k)(2), from
the New Jersey SIP. EPA proposes to find that New Jersey's December 14,
2017, SIP submittal is consistent with CAA requirements and adequately
addresses the specific deficiencies that EPA identified in the 2015 SSM
SIP Action with respect to the New Jersey SIP.

III. Proposed Action

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). EPA is
proposing to approve New Jersey's December 14, 2017 SIP submission
requesting that EPA approve into the SIP a revised N.J. Admin. Code
7:27-7.2(k), which removes N.J. Admin. Code 7:27-7.2(k)(2) from the New
Jersey SIP. EPA is proposing approval of the SIP revision because we
have determined that it is consistent with the requirements for SIP
provisions under the CAA. EPA is further proposing to determine that
such SIP revision corrects the deficiency identified in the June 12,
2015 SIP call. EPA is not reopening the 2015 SSM SIP Action and is only
taking comment on whether this proposed SIP revision is consistent with
CAA requirements.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, EPA is proposing to include in a final rule,
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference revisions to portions of Title 7, Chapter 27, Subchapter 7 of
the New Jersey Administrative Code as discussed in section II of this
preamble. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents
generally available through https://www.regulations.gov and at EPA
Region 2 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more
information).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly,
this proposed action merely approves removal of State law not meeting
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond
those already imposed by State law. For that reason, this proposed
action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The New Jersey SIP does not apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, this
rulemaking does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

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

Lisa Garcia,
Regional Administrator, Region 2.
[FR Doc. 2022-07529 Filed 4-21-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


51010 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 164 / Monday, August 25, 2003 / Notices DATES: An emergency review has been requested in accordance with the Act ( 44 U. S. C. Chapter 3507 ( j)), since public harm is reasonably likely to result if normal clearance procedures are followed. Approval by the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) has been requested by September 22, 2003. Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before September 24, 2003. ADDRESSES: Written comments regarding the emergency review should be addressed to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Attention: Lauren Wittenberg, Desk Officer: Department of Education, Office of Management and Budget; 725 17th Street, NW., Room 10235, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503 or should be electronically mailed to the Internet address Lauren_ Wittenberg@ omb. eop. gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 ( 44 U. S. C. Chapter 35) requires that the Director of OMB provide interested Federal agencies and the public an early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. The Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform its statutory obligations. The Leader, Regulatory Information Management Group, Office of the Chief Information Officer, publishes this notice containing proposed information collection requests at the beginning of the Departmental review of the information collection. Each proposed information collection, grouped by office, contains the following: ( 1) Type of review requested, e. g., new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement; ( 2) Title; ( 3) Summary of the collection; ( 4) Description of the need for, and proposed use of, the information; ( 5) Respondents and frequency of collection; and ( 6) Reporting and/ or Recordkeeping burden. ED invites public comment. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: ( 1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; ( 2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; ( 3) is the estimate of burden accurate; ( 4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ( 5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on respondents, including through the use of information technology.

Dated: August 19, 2003. Angela C. Arrington, Leader, Regulatory Information Management Group, Office of the Chief Information Officer.

Office of the Deputy Secretary Type of Review: New. Title: Performance Based Data Management Initiative. Abstract: The Performance Based Data Management Initiative ( PBDMI) is in the first phase of a multiple year effort to consolidate the collection of education information about States, Districts, and Schools in a way that improves data quality and reduces paperwork burden for all the national education partners. Additional Information: The Department is requesting emergency processing of this collection with an OMB approval date of September 22. The Department has spent over four months of internal review of these data elements with federal program managers and analysts and has visited each of the State Education Agencies that will be submitting this data to determine the availability of the data and the amount of effort required to provide this data to the Department. With such an intensive and thorough review of the data elements by the participating partners in this collection, it has been determined that the purpose for the initial sixty day public comment to ED has been fulfilled. It is also important to provide the State Agencies with as much lead time as possible for the development of their data transmission plans so they will be able to provide this data in November 2003. Frequency: Annually. Affected Public: State, local or Tribal Gov't, SEAs or LEAs. Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden: Responses: 52. Burden Hours: 8,230. Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request may be accessed from http:// edicsweb. ed. gov, by selecting the `` Browse Pending Collections'' link and by clicking on link number 2335. When you access the information collection, click on `` Download Attachments'' to view. Written requests for information should be addressed to Vivian Reese, Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Room 4050, Regional Office Building 3, Washington, DC 20202   4651 or to the e mail address vivan. reese@ ed. gov. Requests may also be electronically mailed to the Internet address OCIO_ RIMG@ ed. gov or faxed to 202   708   9346. Please specify the complete title of the information collection when making your request. Comments regarding burden and/ or the collection activity requirements should be directed to Patrick Sherrill at his e mail address Pat. Sherrill@ ed. gov. Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf ( TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service ( FIRS) at 1   800   877   8339.

[ FR Doc. 03   21642 Filed 8   22   03; 8: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 4000   01   P DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Office of Science; Advanced Scientific Computing Advisory Committee AGENCY: Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice of open meeting cancellation.

On July 30, 2003, the Department of Energy published a notice of open meeting announcing a meeting of the Advanced Scientific Computing Advisory Committee 68 FR 44756. Today's notice is announcing the cancellation of the meeting scheduled for August 21   22, 2003, because the committee will not have a quorum of members for the meeting.

Issued in Washington, DC, on August 20, 2003. Rachel M. Samuel, Deputy Advisory Committee Management Officer. [ FR Doc. 03   21666 Filed 8   21   03; 9: 45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450   01   P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ OPP   2003   0280; FRL   7323   4]

Tribal Pesticide Programs Council; Notice of Public Meeting AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Tribal Pesticide Program Council ( TPPC) will hold a 3   day meeting, beginning on September 17 and ending on September 19, 2003. This notice announces the location and times for the meeting and sets forth the tentative agenda topics. DATES: The meeting will be held on Wednesday, September 17, 2003, from 9 a. m. until 5 p. m., including a closed session from 4 p. m. until 5 p. m.;

VerDate jul< 14> 2003 15: 27 Aug 22, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 25AUN1. SGM 25AUN1 51011 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 164 / Monday, August 25, 2003 / Notices Thursday, September 18, 2003, from 9 a. m. until 5 p. m., including a closed session from 4 p. m. until 5 p. m.; and Friday, September 19, 2003, from 9 a. m. until noon. ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at Miccosukee Resort and Convention Center, 500 SW., 177th Ave., Miami, FL 33194. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Georgia McDuffie, Field and External Affairs Division ( 7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460   0001; telephone number: ( 703) 605   0195; fax number: ( 703) 308   1850; e mail address: Mcduffie. Georgia@ epa. gov; or Lillian Wilmore, TPPC Facilitator, P. O. Box 470829, Brookline Village, MA 02447   0829; telephone number: ( 617) 232   5742; fax: ( 617) 277   1656; e mail address: naecology@ aol. com. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information A. Does this Action Apply to Me? This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of particular interest to those persons interested in TPPC's information exchange relationship with EPA regarding important issues related to human health, environmental exposure to pesticides, and insight into EPA's decision making process. Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action. 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. How Can I Get Copies of This Document and Other Related Information? 1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action under docket ID number OPP   2003   0280. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although, a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information ( CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Public Information and Records Integrity Branch ( PIRIB), Rm. 119, Crystal Mall # 2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The docket telephone number is ( 703) 305   5805. 2. Electronic access. You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the `` Federal Register'' listings at http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket/ to view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Although, not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I. B. 1. Once in the system, select `` search,'' then key in the appropriate docket ID number.

II. Tentative Agenda This unit provides tentative agenda topics for the 2   day meeting. 1. TPPC state of the Council Report. 2. Presentation and questions and answers by EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs and Field and External Affairs Division. 3. Reports from working groups and TPPC participation in other meetings: Tribal Strategy and FOSTTA, Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee, Western Region. Pesticide Meeting, Certification and Training Assessment Group, and Worker Protection. 4. Tribal caucus ( 2). 5. Reports from other organizations: State FIFRA Issues Research and Evaluation Group, American Indian Environmental Office, Tribal Operations Committee, Regional Tribal Operations Committee, Intertribal Agricultural Council, and National Tribal Environmental Council, Intertribal Agricultural Council, and Tribal Air Group. 6. Tribal west nile virus concerns. 7. The new interim guidance on pesticides applied to waterways. 8. Spray drift regulation labeling and minimization. 9. EPA's Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances ( OPPTS) tribal strategy update. 10. OECA enforcement priorities. 11. Pesticide related homeland security concerns. 12. Updates from the subregional lead officer. 13. Worker protection, e commerce, and tribal enforcement issues. 14. Background checks on inspections. List of Subject Environmental protection.

Dated: August 12, 2003. Kennan Garvey, Acting Associate Director, Field and External Affairs Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. [ FR Doc. 03   21663 Filed 8   22   03; 8: 45 a. m.]

BILLING CODE 6560   50   S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ FRL   7548   8]

Notice of Availability: Draft Watershed Based National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) Permitting Implementation Guidance AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA). ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice announces that the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency is publishing Draft Guidance On Watershed Based National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) Permitting Implementation. EPA is making the draft guidance available to the public for a period of thirty days during which EPA seeks comments on the document. The purpose of this guidance is to describe the concept of and the process for watershed based permitting under the NPDES permit program. Watershed based NPDES permitting is an approach to developing NPDES permits for multiple point sources located within a defined geographic area ( i. e., watershed boundaries). This approach, aimed at achieving new efficiencies and environmental results, provides a process for considering all stressors within a hydrologically defined drainage basin or other geographic area, rather than addressing individual pollutant sources on a discharge bydischarge basis. As outlined in the guidance, EPA will continue to implement the NPDES program through its existing statutory and regulatory authorities. The guidance cannot impose legally binding requirements on EPA, States, Tribes, or the regulated community. It cannot substitute for Clean Water Act ( CWA) requirements, EPA's regulations, or the obligations imposed by consent decrees or enforcement orders. DATES: All public comments on the draft guidance must be received on or before September 24, 2003. ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to Patrick Bradley, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA East Building ( MC 4203M), 1200 VerDate jul< 14> 2003 15: 27 Aug 22, 2003 Jkt 200001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\ FR\ FM\ 25AUN1. SGM 25AUN1


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 178 (Friday, September 15, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 43348]
[FR Doc No: 2017-19562]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Notice of Commission Staff Attendance

    The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) hereby gives
notice that members of the Commission's staff may attend the following
meetings related to the transmission planning activities of the New
York Independent System Operator, Inc. (NYISO):

NYISO Business Issues Committee Meeting

September 12, 2017, 10:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. (EST)

    The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and
teleconference.
    The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
    Further information may be found at: http://www.nyiso.com/public/committees/documents.jsp?com=bic&directory=2017-09-12.

NYISO Operating Committee Meeting

September 15, 2017, 10:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. (EST)

    The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and
teleconference.
    The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
    Further information may be found at: http://www.nyiso.com/public/committees/documents.jsp?com=oc&directory=2017-09-15.

NYISO Electric System Planning Working Group Meeting

September 26, 2017, 10:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. (EST)

    The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and
teleconference.
    The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
    Further information may be found at: http://www.nyiso.com/public/committees/documents.jsp?com=bic_espwg&directory=2017-09-26.

NYISO Management Committee Meeting

September 27, 2017, 10:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m. (EST)

    The above-referenced meeting will be via web conference and
teleconference.
    The above-referenced meeting is open to stakeholders.
    Further information may be found at: http://www.nyiso.com/public/committees/documents.jsp?com=mc&directory=2017-09-27.
    The discussions at the meetings described above may address matters
at issue in the following proceedings:
    New York Independent System Operator, Inc., Docket No. ER13-102.
    New York Independent System Operator, Inc., Docket No. ER15-2059.
    New York Transco, LLC, Docket No. ER15-572.
    For more information, contact James Eason, Office of Energy Market
Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: September 5, 2017.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-19562 Filed 9-14-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 79 (Monday, April 25, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 24024-24026]
[FR Doc No: 2016-09518]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2016-0227]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Newport Beach Harbor Grand Canal Bridge
Construction; Newport Beach, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone in the
waters of the Newport Harbor Grand Canal on Balboa Island. This
temporary safety zone is being established to provide for the safety of
the waterway users during bridge construction over a 10 month period.
Transiting through or within this temporary safety zone is prohibited
unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port, Los
Angeles--Long Beach, or her designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective without actual notice from April 25, 2016
through January 31, 2017. For purposes of enforcement, actual notice
will be used from April 4, 2016 until April 25, 2016.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2016-0227 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 BMC James Morgia, Waterways Management, U.S. Coast Guard
Sector Los Angeles--Long Beach; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
E.O. Executive order
FR Federal Register
LLNR Light List Number
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Pub. L. Public Law
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.'' An NPRM is unnecessary and for this regulation because
local authorities have already notified boaters not to transit the
waterway during bridge construction and the Grand Canal waterway
typically only experiences minimal vessel traffic, by small personal
pleasure crafts. An NPRM is impractical for this regulation because the
Coast Guard did not receive notice of the April 4 construction until
March 8, 2016, and the construction schedule cannot be moved. Under 5
U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds good cause for making this rule
effective less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective without 30 days advanced notice
of the rule. Delaying the effective date of the rule is impractical and
unnecessary for the same reasons specified above: (1) Local authorities
have already notified boaters not to transit the waterway during bridge
construction, (2) the Coast Guard did not receive notice of the April 4
construction until March 8, 2016, and (3) the Grand Canal waterway
typically only experiences minimal vessel traffic, by small personal
pleasure craft.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C.
1231. The Captain of the Port Los Angeles--Long Beach (COTP) has
determined that potential hazards, like falling debris and heavy
equipment operations in and near the waterway create a serious safety
concern for anyone transiting the waterway during construction. This
temporary safety zone is necessary to ensure the safety of, and reduce
the risk to, the public, and mariners, in vicinity of the Newport
Harbor Grand Canal.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    The U.S. Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on
April 4, 2016 to January 31, 2017, encompassing all navigable waters
from the surface to the sea floor within the following coordinates:
33[deg]36.311' N. 117[deg]53.323' W., 33[deg]36.437' N. 117[deg]53.324'
W., 33[deg]36.438' N. 117[deg]53.343' W., 33[deg]36.312' N.
117[deg]53.341' W. All coordinates displayed are referenced by North
American Datum of 1983, World Geodetic System, 1984.
    This temporary safety zone will be effective from 6:00 a.m. on
April 4, 2016, to 11:59 p.m. on January 31, 2017. No vessel or person
is permitted to operate in the safety zone without obtaining permission
from the Captain of the Port (COTP) or the COTP's designated
representative. Sector Los Angeles--Long Beach may be contacted on VHF-
FM Channel 16 or<PHONE_NUMBER>.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    E.O.s 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.
E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and
benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting
flexibility. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under E.O. 12866. Accordingly, it has not been
reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
    The implementation of this temporary safety zone is necessary for
the protection of all waterway users. The size of the zone is the
minimum necessary to provide adequate protection for the waterways
users, adjoining areas, and the public. Any hardships experienced by
persons or vessels are considered minimal compared to the interest in
protecting the public.

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.
    This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be
small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit
or anchor within the designated area during the designated enforcement
times. This temporary safety zone will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities for the following
reasons: (i) This zone will support the safety of vessel traffic
through the area, (ii) this zone is limited in scope and duration,
(iii) the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-
FM marine channel 16 while the safety zone is enforced.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under E.O. 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 E.O. 13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under E.O. 13175,
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because
it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian
tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian
tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has
implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, 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 is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph
34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental
analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical
Exclusion Determination are available in the docket where indicated
under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to
the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-
1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.
0
2. Add Sec.  165.T11-772 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T11-772  Safety Zone; Newport Beach Harbor Grand Canal Bridge
Construction; Newport Beach, CA.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable
waters from the surface to the sea floor within the following
coordinates: 33[deg]36.311' N. 117[deg]53.323' W., 33[deg]36.437' N.
117[deg]53.324' W., 33[deg]36.438' N. 117[deg]53.343' W.,
33[deg]36.312' N. 117[deg]53.341' W. All coordinates displayed are
referenced by North American Datum of 1983, World Geodetic System,
1984.
    (b) Definitions. For the purposes of 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 Los Angeles-Long
Beach (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 VHF-FM Channel 16 or<PHONE_NUMBER>. 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 rule will be enforced from April 4,
2016 to January 31, 2017.

    Dated: March 23, 2016.
J. F. Williams,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Los Angeles--Long Beach.
[FR Doc. 2016-09518 Filed 4-22-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 137 (Monday, July 18, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46606-46608]
[FR Doc No: 2016-16791]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R06-OAR-2012-0022; FRL-9949-09-Region 6]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Louisiana;
Permitting of Greenhouse Gases

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is partially
approving and partially disapproving a revision to the Louisiana State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted on December 21, 2011. This revision
outlines the State's program to regulate and permit emissions of
greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the Louisiana Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) program. We are approving these provisions to the
extent that they address the GHG permitting requirements for sources
already subject to PSD for pollutants other than GHGs. We are
disapproving these provisions to the extent they require PSD permitting
for sources that emit only GHGs above the thresholds triggering the
requirement to obtain a PSD permit since that is no longer consistent
with federal law. The EPA is taking this action under section 110 and
part C of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).

DATES: This rule is effective on August 17, 2016.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R06-OAR-2012-0022. 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, e.g.,
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 EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas,
Texas 75202-2733.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Adina Wiley<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
(214) 665-2115.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' means the EPA.

I. Background

    The background for this action is discussed in detail in our May 6,
2016 proposal. See 81 FR 27382. In that document we proposed to approve
as revisions to the Louisiana SIP, the revisions to the Louisiana PSD
permitting program submitted on December 21, 2011, that provide the
State the authority to regulate and permit emissions of GHGs from Step
1 sources in the Louisiana PSD program. We also proposed to disapprove
the provisions submitted on December 21, 2011, that would enable the
State of Louisiana to regulate and permit Step 2 sources under the
Louisiana PSD program because the submitted provisions were no longer
consistent with federal laws.
    Our proposed action also corrected an omission in the EPA's August
19, 2015, proposed approval of the Louisiana Major New Source Review
program, where we did not explicitly propose approval of a portion of
the definition of ``major stationary source.'' To correct this
omission, we provided an additional opportunity for the public to
comment on the revisions to the definition of ``major stationary
source'' at LAC 33:III.509(B) submitted on December 20, 2005 as
subparagraph (e), but was moved to subparagraph (f) in the December 21,
2011 submittal.

II. Response to Comments

    We received comments from the Louisiana Department of Environmental
Quality (LDEQ). Our responses are provided below.
    Comment 1: The LDEQ commented that the State initiated rulemaking
AQ358 on January 20, 2016, to remove the PSD GHG Step 2 permitting
provisions. The rulemaking was promulgated on April 20, 2016, after no
comments were received during the public comment period. Therefore,
LDEQ's PSD program no longer contains permitting requirements for Step
2 sources. The LDEQ also submitted copies of the AQ358 rulemaking for
reference.
    Response 1: We recognize that the LDEQ has completed a rulemaking
to remove the Step 2 GHG permitting provisions from the LDEQ PSD
program consistent with our proposed partial disapproval. Today's final
action disapproves the Step 2 provisions that were submitted for the
EPA's consideration as a revision to the Louisiana SIP. No further
actions are necessary on the part of the LDEQ to remove the Step 2
provisions adopted by the LDEQ on April 20, 2011 and submitted December
21, 2011, from our consideration. Further, today's final action also
removes the portion of the Louisiana SIP at 40 CFR 52.986(c) where the
EPA narrowed our approval of the Louisiana PSD SIP to apply to Step 2
permitting. See 75 FR 82536, December 30, 2010.
    Comment 2: The LDEQ provided comment on the EPA's interpretation of
the ``automatic rescission provisions'' under LAC 33:III.501(C)(14).
Specifically, the LDEQ commented that ``In the event of a ``change in
federal law'' or a Supreme Court or D.C. Circuit ``order which limits
or renders ineffective the regulation'' of GHGs under Part C of Title I
of the Clean Air Act, LDEQ will provide notice to the general public
and regulated community if such law or order will impact how LDEQ's
[sic] administers its PSD program under LAC 33:III.509. In addition,
LDEQ will ensure that any such changes are consistent with EPA's
interpretation of the law or order.''
    Response 2: The EPA appreciates the comment from the LDEQ and the
affirmation that the LDEQ will provide notice to the general public and
community in the event of a change in federal law or a court decision
that limits or renders ineffective the regulation of GHGs under the PSD
program. We note that the LDEQ stated public notice would likely be
through the LDEQ Web site; we find this method to be sufficient to
satisfy the requirements of section 110(l) of the CAA.

III. Final Action

    We are approving the following revisions to the Louisiana SIP
submitted on December 21, 2011. The revisions were adopted and
submitted in accordance with the CAA and are consistent with the laws
and regulations for PSD permitting of GHGs; therefore we are taking
final action to approve these revisions under section 110 and part C of
the Act.
     New provisions as LAC 33:III.501(C)(14) adopted on April
20, 2011 and submitted December 21, 2011;
     New definitions of ``carbon dioxide equivalent'' and
``greenhouse gases'' at LAC 33:III.509(B) adopted on April 20, 2011 and
submitted December 21, 2011;
     Revisions to the definitions of ``major stationary
source'' paragraphs (a) and (b) and ``significant'' at LAC
33:III.509(B) adopted on April 20, 2011 and submitted on December 21,
2011; and
     Revisions to the definition of ``major stationary source''
paragraph (e)

as submitted on December 20, 2005, and renumbered to paragraph (f) in
the April 20, 2011 adoption submitted on December 21, 2011.
    As a result of our final approval of the above revisions, the EPA
is also removing the existing provisions at 40 CFR 52.986(c) under
which the EPA narrowed the applicability of the Louisiana PSD program
to regulate sources consistent with federal PSD permitting
requirements.
    We are disapproving the following severable portions of the
December 21, 2011 Louisiana SIP submittal that establish GHG permitting
requirements for Step 2 sources:
     Revisions to the definitions of ``major stationary
source'' paragraph (c) and ``significant'' as it pertains to Step 2
sources, adopted on April 20, 2011 and submitted on December 21, 2011.
    As a result of our final disapproval of the above revisions, the
EPA is adding a new entry at 40 CFR 52.986(c) to reflect the
disapproval of the PSD GHG Step 2 provisions. We are taking this final
action under section 110 and part C of the Act; as such, we are not
imposing sanctions as a result of this final disapproval. This final
disapproval does not require the EPA to promulgate a Federal
Implementation Plan because we are finding that the submitted
provisions are inconsistent with federal laws for the regulation and
permitting of GHG emissions.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, we are finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1
CFR 51.5, we are finalizing the incorporation by reference of the
revisions to the Louisiana regulations as described in the Final Action
section above. We have made, and will continue to make, these documents
generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or
in hard copy at the EPA Region 6 office.

V. 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, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action proposes approval of the portions of the submitted revisions to
State law for the regulation and permitting of GHG emissions consistent
with federal requirements and proposes disapproval of the portions of
the state laws that do not meet Federal requirements for the regulation
and permitting of GHG emissions.

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

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the PRA. There is no burden imposed under the PRA because this action
proposes to disapprove submitted revisions that are no longer
consistent with federal laws for the regulation and permitting of GHG
emissions.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities. This action
proposes to disapprove submitted revisions that are no longer
consistent with federal laws for the regulation and permitting of GHG
emissions, and therefore will have no impact on small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state,
local or tribal governments or the private sector. This action proposes
to disapprove submitted revisions that are no longer consistent with
federal laws for the regulation and permitting of GHG emissions, and
therefore will have no impact on small governments.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. This action proposes to disapprove provisions of
state law that are no longer consistent with federal laws for the
regulation and permitting of GHG emissions; there are no requirements
or responsibilities added or removed from Indian Tribal Governments.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

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

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it disapproves state permitting
provisions that are inconsistent with federal laws for the regulation
and permitting of GHG emissions.

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

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

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

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

    The EPA believes the human health or environmental risk addressed
by this action will not have potential disproportionately high and
adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, low-income
or indigenous populations. This action is not subject to Executive
Order 12898 because it disapproves state permitting provisions that are
inconsistent with federal laws for the regulation and permitting of GHG
emissions.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate,

the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the
United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register.
A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in
the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by
5 U.S.C. 804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 16, 2016. 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, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: July 7, 2016.
Ron Curry,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart T--Louisiana

0
2. In Sec.  52.970(c), the table titled ``EPA Approved Louisiana
Regulations in the Louisiana SIP'' is amended by revising the entries
for ``Section 501'' and ``Section 509'' under Chapter 5--Permit
Procedures to read as follows:

Sec.  52.970  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                                 EPA Approved Louisiana Regulations in the Louisiana SIP
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              State approval
          State citation                 Title/Subject             date                 EPA approval date                         Comments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
                                                              Chapter 5--Permit Procedures
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 501......................  Scope and Applicability..       4/20/2011  7/18/2016, [Insert Federal Register   ....................................
                                                                               citation].

                                                                      * * * * * * *
Section 509......................  Prevention of Significant      12/20/2012  7/18/2016, [Insert Federal Register   SIP does not include the provisions
                                    Deterioration.                             citation].                            for Step 2 GHG permitting at
                                                                                ``major stationary source''
                                                                                paragraph (c) or ``significant'' as
                                                                                adopted on April 20, 2011.
                                                                                SIP does not include the PM2.5 SMC
                                                                                at LAC 33:III.509(I)(5)(a) from the
                                                                                12/20/2012 adoption. LAC
                                                                                33:III.509(I)(5)(a) is SIP-approved
                                                                                as of 10/20/2007 adoption.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

0
3. Section 52.986 is amended by revising paragraph (c) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.986  Significant deterioration of air quality.

* * * * *
    (c) The revisions to the Louisiana SIP adopted on April 20, 2011,
and submitted on December 21, 2011, establishing PSD permitting
requirements for sources that are classified as major and thus required
to obtain a PSD permit based solely on their potential GHG emissions
(``Step 2'' sources) at the definition of ``major stationary source''
paragraph (c) and the definition of ``significant'' at LAC
33:III.509(B), are disapproved as inconsistent with federal law for the
regulation and permitting of GHGs.
[FR Doc. 2016-16791 Filed 7-15-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 115 (Thursday, June 14, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35723-35725]
[FR Doc No: 2012-14533]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-67168; File No. SR-ISE-2012-46]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule
Change To Delete Certain Fees

June 8, 2012.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Exchange Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is
hereby given that on June 1, 2012, the International Securities
Exchange, LLC (the ``Exchange'' or the ``ISE'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission the proposed rule change, as
described in Items I and II below, which items have been prepared by
the self-regulatory organization. The Commission is publishing this
notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested
persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The ISE proposes to eliminate three fees from its Schedule of Fees.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's Web
site (http://www.ise.com), at the principal office of the Exchange, and
at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

    In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization
included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the
proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at
the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization
has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B and C below, of the
most significant aspects of such statements.

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of this proposed rule change is to eliminate three fees
from the Exchange's Schedule of Fees. First, the Exchange currently has
a fee of $0.25 per contract applicable to customers that transact in
complex orders, i.e., customer complex orders that interact with
complex orders residing on the complex order book thereby taking
liquidity from the complex order book (``Complex Order Taker Fee'').\3\
This fee was introduced before the Exchange introduced the Professional
Customer category with the intent to charge non-broker dealer customers
that use highly developed trading systems and are quickly able to hit
the bid or lift an offer thereby taking liquidity, i.e., interacting
with complex orders resident on the complex order book. The Exchange
adopted this fee to put Professional Customers on more equal footing
with broker dealer orders that were already subject to this fee. The
purpose of this fee was not to charge retail investors, who are now
known on the Exchange as Priority Customers, and therefore the Exchange
adopted a waiver from this fee for the first 1,000 orders that a
Member, acting on behalf of one or more of its customers, transacts in
one month that takes liquidity from the complex order book. Now that
the Exchange is able to distinguish between Priority and non-Priority
Customers, the Exchange believes this fee is no longer necessary and
proposes to eliminate it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See Exchange Act Release Nos. 34-54751 (November 14, 2006),
71 FR 67667 (November 22, 2006) (SR-ISE-2006-56); 55247 (February 6,
2007), 72 FR 7099 (February 14, 2007) (SR-ISE-2007-03); 59576 (March
13, 2009), 74 FR 11982 (March 20, 2009) (SR-ISE-2009-07); and 60778
(October 2, 2009), 74 FR 51896 (October 8, 2009) (SR-ISE-2009-72).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2010, the Exchange began assessing per contract transaction fees
and rebates to market participants that add or remove liquidity from
the Exchange (``maker/taker fees and rebates'') \4\ in a number of
options classes (the ``Select

Symbols'').\5\ The Exchange's maker/taker fees and rebates are
applicable to regular and complex orders executed in the Select
Symbols. The Exchange subsequently adopted maker/taker fees and rebates
for complex orders in symbols that are in the Penny Pilot program but
are not a Select Symbol (Non-Select Penny Pilot Symbols) \6\ and then
adopted maker/taker fees and rebates for complex orders in all symbols
that are not in the Penny Pilot Program (``Non-Penny Pilot
Symbols'').\7\ Now that the Exchange has adopted maker/taker fees and
rebates, which are designed to attract complex orders to the Exchange,
and has a specific taker fee for Customer (Professional) complex
orders, the Complex Order Taker Fee has become a disincentive for
Members to execute Priority Customer complex orders to take advantage
of rebates offered by the Exchange because once Priority Customers
orders reach the 1,000 order threshold, those orders become subject to
the Complex Order Taker Fee. As noted above, the Exchange did not
intend to charge Priority Customer orders the Complex Order Taker Fee
and this proposed rule change will fully accomplish that goal.
Therefore, the Exchange proposes to eliminate this fee and remove it
from its Schedule of Fees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See Exchange Act Release No. 61869 (April 7, 2010), 75 FR
19449 (April 14, 2010) (SR-ISE-2010-25).
    \5\ The Select Symbols are identified by their ticker symbol on
the Exchange's Schedule of Fees.
    \6\ See Exchange Act Release No. 65724 (November 10, 2011), 76
FR 71413 (November 17, 2011) (SR-ISE-2011-72).
    \7\ See Exchange Act Release Nos. 66084 (January 3, 2012), 77 FR
1103 (January 9, 2012) (SR-ISE-2011-84); and 66392 (February 14,
2012), 77 FR 10016 (February 21, 2012) (SR-ISE-2012-06).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the Exchange currently has a fee pursuant to which Exchange
Primary Market Makers (PMMs) are subject to a minimum fee of $50,000
per options group (``Minimum PMM Fee''). To the extent that aggregate
execution fees in a group or bin of options do not total at least
$50,000 per month, the PMM for that bin must pay a fee representing the
difference between $50,000 and the aggregate actual execution fees. The
Exchange adopted this fee during its early years in order to encourage
PMMs to ramp up their operations as quickly as possible and to avoid a
potential revenue shortfall. ISE's PMMs have been fully operating all
of their PMM trading rights for a number of years and generate revenue
greater than the Minimum PMM Fee. The Exchange does not believe there
is a need for this fee any more. Therefore, the Exchange proposes to
eliminate this fee and remove it from its Schedule of Fees.
    Finally, when the Exchange adopted its maker/taker fees and
rebates, it also adopted a distinction between small size Priority
Customer orders, i.e., Priority Customer orders of less than 100
contracts, and large size Priority Customer orders, i.e., Priority
Customer orders of 100 or more contracts.\8\ The purpose for this
distinction was to allow the Exchange to charge small size Priority
Customer orders and large size Priority Customer orders different
rates. And for a period of time, the Exchange charged a higher fee for
large size Priority Customer orders.\9\ However, in January 2011, the
Exchange standardized the fee for Priority Customer orders \10\ and no
longer charges different rates for these orders. The Exchange now
proposes to eliminate this distinction from its Schedule of Fees and
will continue to apply the same level of fees to Priority Customer
orders, regardless of size.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See supra note 4 [sic].
    \9\ See supra note 4 [sic].
    \10\ See Exchange Act Release No. 63664 (January 6, 2011), 76 FR
2170 (January 12, 2011) (SR-ISE-2010-120).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Schedule of
Fees is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act
of 1934 (the ``Exchange Act'') \11\ in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(4) of the Exchange Act \12\ in particular,
in that it is an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and
other charges among Exchange members and other persons using its
facilities. The Exchange believes it is reasonable to remove the three
fees that are the subject of this proposed rule change from the
Exchange's Schedule of Fees because they are either no longer
applicable, in the case of the Minimum PMM fee and the fee for Priority
Customer orders, or are a disincentive for order flow, as in the case
of the Complex Order Taker Fee. The Complex Order Taker Fee, since its
adoption, was intended for Professional Customer orders, as evidenced
by the waiver the Exchange adopted that waived this fee for the first
1,000 orders from customers that take liquidity from the complex order
book. The presumption was that Priority Customer orders would not
exceed this threshold and thus would not be subject to the fee. This
proposed rule change accomplishes that goal because Professional
Customer complex orders that take liquidity are now charged a fee under
the Exchange's maker/taker fees and by removing this fee from the
Exchange's Schedule of Fees, Priority Customer orders will no longer be
subject to this fee.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange believes that this proposed rule change which seeks to
amend the text of the Schedule of Fees to clarify the applicability of
certain fees is also both reasonable and equitable because Members
would benefit from clear guidance in the rule text describing the
manner in which the Exchange would assess fees. The Exchange further
believes the proposed rule change is reasonable because removing these
fees from the Schedule of Fees will provide clarity and greater
transparency regarding the Exchange's fees. The Exchange notes that the
proposed rule change is also equitably allocated and not unfairly
discriminatory in that it treats similarly situated market participants
in the same manner, i.e. the removal of the three fees will impact all
market participants equally on the Exchange.

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

    The proposed rule change does not impose any burden on competition
that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of
the Exchange Act.

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)(ii) of the Exchange Act.\13\ At any time within 60 days of
the filing of such 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 Exchange Act. If the Commission takes such action, the
Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the
proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 Exchange Act. Comments may be submitted
by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an Email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File No. SR-ISE-2012-46 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2012-46. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2012-46 and should be
submitted on or before July 5, 2012.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-14533 Filed 6-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P