[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 234 (Wednesday, December 5, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 72284-72287]
[FR Doc No: 2012-29367]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0814; FRL- 9757-9]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Region 4
States; Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) Infrastructure Requirement for the
1997 and 2006 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality
Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve submissions from Alabama, Georgia,
Mississippi and South Carolina for inclusion into each states' State
Implementation Plans (SIP). This proposal pertains to the Clean Air Act
(CAA) requirements regarding prevention of significant deterioration
(PSD) for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
infrastructure SIPs. The CAA requires that each state adopt and submit
a SIP for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of each
NAAQS promulgated by EPA, which is commonly referred to as an
``infrastructure'' SIP. EPA is proposing to approve the submissions for
Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, and South Carolina that relate to
adequate provisions prohibiting emissions that interfere with any other
state's required measures to prevent significant deterioration of its
air quality. All other applicable infrastructure requirements for the
1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS associated with
these States are being addressed in separate rulemakings.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before January 4, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2012-0814, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: ``EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0814,'' Regulatory Development Section,
Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are
only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation.
The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through
Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-
2012-0814. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit through www.regulations.gov or
email, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email
comment directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your
email address will be automatically captured and included as part of
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., 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 electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding
federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Lakeman, Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is (404)
562-9043. Mr. Lakeman can be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Table of Contents

I. Background
II. What are States required to address under Sections 110(a)(2)(D)?
III. What is EPA's analysis of how Region 4 States addressed element
(D)(i)(II) related to PSD?
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38652), EPA established an annual
PM2.5 NAAQS at 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\)
based on a 3-year average of annual mean PM2.5
concentrations. At that time, EPA also established a 24-hour NAAQS of
65 [mu]g/m\3\. See 40 CFR 50.7. On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), EPA
retained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS at 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\
based on a 3-year average of annual mean PM2.5
concentrations, and promulgated a new 24-hour NAAQS of 35 [mu]g/m\3\
based on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour
concentrations. By statute, SIPs meeting the requirements of sections
110(a)(1) and (2) are to be submitted by states within three years
after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. Sections 110(a)(1) and
(2) require states to address basic SIP requirements, including
emissions inventories, monitoring, and modeling to assure attainment
and maintenance of the NAAQS. States were required to submit such SIPs
to EPA no later than July 2000 for the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS, and no later than October 2009 for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS.
    States were required to submit such SIPs to EPA no later than July
2000 for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, and no

later than Octoer 2009 for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS.
    On March 4, 2004, Earthjustice submitted a notice of intent to sue
related to EPA's failure to issue findings of failure to submit related
to the ``infrastructure'' requirements for the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS. On March 10, 2005, EPA entered into a consent
decree with Earthjustice which required EPA, among other things, to
complete a Federal Register notice announcing EPA's determinations
pursuant to section 110(k)(1)(B) as to whether each state had made
complete submissions to meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2) for
the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS by October 5, 2008. In accordance with
the consent decree, EPA made completeness findings for each state based
upon what the Agency received from each state for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS as of October 3, 2008.
    On October 22, 2008, EPA published a final rulemaking entitled
``Completeness Findings for Section 110(a) State Implementation Plans
Pertaining to the Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) NAAQS''
making a finding that each state had submitted or failed to submit a
complete SIP that provided the basic program elements of section
110(a)(2) necessary to implement the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. See
73 FR 62902. For those states that did receive findings, the findings
of failure to submit for all or a portion of a state's implementation
plan established a 24-month deadline for EPA to promulgate a Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) to address the outstanding SIP elements
unless, prior to that time, the affected states submitted, and EPA
approved, the required SIPs.
    The findings that all or portions of a state's submission are
complete established a 12-month deadline for EPA to take action upon
the complete SIP elements in accordance with section 110(k). Alabama,
Georgia, Mississippi and South Carolina's infrastructure submissions
were received by EPA on July 25, 2008, July 23, 2008, December 7, 2007,
and March 14, 2008, respectively, for the 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS and on September 23, 2009, October 21, 2009, October 6, 2009, and
September 18, 2009, respectively, for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS. Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi and South Carolina were among
other states that did not receive findings of failure to submit because
they had provided a complete submission to EPA to address the
infrastructure elements for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS by October
3, 2008.
    On July 6, 2011, WildEarth Guardians and Sierra Club filed an
amended complaint related to EPA's failure to take action on the SIP
submittal related to the ``infrastructure'' requirements for the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. On October 20, 2011, EPA entered into a
consent decree with WildEarth Guardians and Sierra Club which required
EPA, among other things, to complete a Federal Register notice of the
Agency's final action either approving, disapproving, or approving in
part and disapproving in part the Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi and
South Carolina 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure SIP
submittals addressing the applicable requirements of sections
110(a)(2)(A)-(H), (J)-(M), except for section 110(a)(2)(C)
nonattainment area requirements and section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) visibility
requirements. The rulemaking proposed through today's action is
consistent with the terms of this consent decree.
    Today's action is proposing to approve Alabama, Georgia,
Mississippi and South Carolina's infrastructure submissions for the
1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS addressing CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) related to adequate provisions prohibiting
emissions that interfere with any other state's required measures to
prevent significant deterioration of its air quality (referred to as
``prong 3''). EPA has taken previous action on Alabama, Georgia,
Mississippi and South Carolina's infrastructure submissions for the
1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS for sections 110(a)(2)(A)-(F),
(H), (J)-(M), including other portions of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) in
separate actions from today's rulemaking.

II. What are States required to address under Sections 110(a)(2)(D)?

    Section 110(a)(2)(D) has two components, 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and
110(a)(2)(D)(ii). Specifically, section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) has four
components that require SIPs to include provisions prohibiting any
source or other type of emissions activity in one state from: 1)
contributing significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in any other
State, and 2) interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS by any other
State (collectively referred to as 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)); or interfering
with measures required to 3) prevent significant deterioration of air
quality in any other State, or 4) protect visibility in any other State
(collectively referred to as 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)). Section
110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs to include provisions insuring
compliance with sections 115 and 126 of the Act, relating to interstate
and international pollution abatement.
    In previous actions, EPA has already taken action to address
Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi and South Carolina's SIP submissions
related to sections 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for the
1997 annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Today's proposed
rulemaking relates only to requirements related to prong 3 of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i), which as previously described, requires that the SIP
contain adequate provisions prohibiting emissions that interfere with
any other state's required measures to prevent significant
deterioration of its air quality. More information on this requirement
and EPA's rationale for today's proposal that each state is meeting
this requirement for purposes of the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS is provided below.

III. What is EPA's analysis of how Region 4 States addressed element
(D)(i)(II) related to PSD?

    EPA's September 25, 2009, memorandum entitled ``Guidance on SIP
Elements Required Under Section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour
Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality
Standards'' provided guidance on addressing the infrastructure
requirements required under sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) of the CAA
with respect to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The 2009
Guidance describes that a state's PSD permitting program is the primary
measure that such state must include in its SIP to prevent significant
deterioration of air quality in accordance with prong 3 of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i). EPA believes that Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi and
South Carolina's infrastructure submissions are consistent with the
2009 Guidance, when considered in conjunction with each State's PSD
program.
    At present, there are four regulations that are required to be
adopted into the SIP to meet PSD-related infrastructure requirements.
See Sections 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), and 110(a)(2)(J) of the
CAA. These regulations are: (1) ``Final Rule To Implement the 8-Hour
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard--Phase 2; Final Rule''
(November 29, 2005, 70 FR 71612) (hereafter referred to as the ``Phase
II Rule''); (2) ``Implementation of the New Source Review Program for
Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers; Final Rule'' (May 16,
2008, 73 FR 28321) (hereafter referred to as the ``NSR PM2.5
Rule''); (3) ``Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V
Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule; Final Rule'' (June 3, 2010, 75 FR 31514)
(hereafter referred to as the ``GHG Tailoring Rule''); and, (4) ``Final
Rule on the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) for

Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5)--
Increments, Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and Significant monitoring
Concentration (SMC); Final Rule'' (October 20, 2010, 75 FR 64864)
(hereafter referred to as ``PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC
Rule (only as it relates to PM2.5 Increments)''). Specific
details on these PSD requirements can be found in the respective final
rules cited above, however, a brief summary of each rule is provided
below.
    First, as part of the framework to implement the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS, EPA promulgated an implementation rule in two phases.\1\ The
Phase 2 Rule is relevant to today's action. Among other changes, the
rule revised the PSD regulations to recognize nitrogen oxide (NOx) as
an ozone precursor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA promulgated the Phase I Rule on April 30, 2004 entitled
``Final Rule To Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standard--Phase 1.'' See 69 FR 23951.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the NSR PM2.5 Rule revised the NSR program to
establish the framework for implementing preconstruction permit review
for the PM2.5 NAAQS in both attainment areas and
nonattainment areas. These PSD requirements included: (1) A provision
that NSR permits address directly emitted PM2.5 and
precursor pollutants; (2) a requirement establishing significant
emission rates for direct PM2.5 and precursor pollutants
(including sulfur dioxide (SO2) and NOx); 3) exceptions to
the grandfathering policy for permits being reviewed under the
PM10 surrogate program; and, (4) a revision that states
account for gases that condense to form particles (condensables) in
PM2.5 and PM10 emission limits in PSD permits.
    Third, in the GHG Tailoring Rule, EPA tailored the applicability
criteria that determine which GHG emission sources become subject to
the PSD program of the CAA. See 75 FR 31514.
    Lastly, the PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule (only as
it relates to PM2.5 increments) provided additional
regulatory requirements under the PSD program regarding the
implementation of the PM2.5 NAAQS for NSR by specifically
establishing PM2.5 increments pursuant to section 166(a) of
the CAA to prevent significant deterioration of air quality in areas
meeting the NAAQS.
    The PSD requirements promulgated in the aforementioned regulations
establish the framework for a comprehensive SIP PSD program which EPA
has determined are necessary to comply with prong 3 of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i). The following table shows when EPA approved the
incorporation of the aforementioned regulations in each of the States'
implementation plan:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ On June 11, 2010, the South Carolina Governor signed an
Executive Order to confirm that the State had authority to implement
appropriate emission thresholds for determining which new stationary
sources and modification projects become subject to PSD permitting
requirements for their GHG emissions at the state level. On December
30, 2010, EPA published a final rulemaking, ``Action To Ensure
Authority To Implement Title V Permitting Programs Under the
Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule'' (75 FR 82254) to narrow EPA's
previous approval of State title V operating permit programs that
apply (or may apply) to GHG-emitting sources; this rule hereafter is
referred to as the ``Narrowing Rule.'' EPA narrowed its previous
approval of certain State permitting thresholds, for GHG emissions
so that only sources that equal or exceed the GHG thresholds, as
established in the final Tailoring Rule, would be covered as major
sources by the Federally-approved programs in the affected States.
South Carolina was included in this rulemaking. On March 4, 2011,
South Carolina submitted a letter withdrawing from EPA's
consideration the portion of South Carolina's SIP for which EPA
withdrew its previous approval in the Narrowing Rule. These
provisions are no longer intended for inclusion in the SIP, and are
no longer before EPA for its approval or disapproval. A copy of
South Carolina's letter can be accessed at www.regulations.gov using
Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2010-0721.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                PM2.5 PSD  increment-SILs-SMC
             State                       Phase II rule              GHG tailoring rule              NSR PM2.5 rule          rule (as it relates to PM2.5
                                                                                increments)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama........................  5/1/2008                      12/29/2010                    9/26/2012                     9/26/2012.
                                 73 FR 23957                   75 FR 81863                   77 FR 59100                   77 FR 59100.
Georgia........................  11/22/2010                    9/8/2011                      9/8/2011                      See Below.
                                 75 FR 71018                   76 FR 55572                   76 FR 55572
Mississippi....................  12/20/2010                    12/29/2010                    9/26/2012                     9/26/2012.
                                 75 FR 79300                   75 FR 81858                   77 FR 59095                   77 FR 59095.
South Carolina.................  6/23/2011                     Refer to Footnote \2\         6/23/2011                     See Below.
                                 76 FR 36875                   ............................  76 FR 36875
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. Alabama: As noted in the table above, Alabama has addressed, and
EPA has approved, the underlying PSD regulations to support the State's
program. In this action, EPA is proposing to approve Alabama's
infrastructure submissions for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS with regard to the PSD requirements for prong 3
of 110(a)(2)(D)(i).
    2. Georgia: In this action, EPA is proposing to approve Georgia's
infrastructure submissions for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS with regard to the prong 3 requirement of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). Today's proposed approval of Georgia's
implementation plan respecting the prong 3 infrastructure element of
110(a)(2)(D)(i) is contingent upon EPA first taking final action to
approve Georgia's July 26, 2012, SIP revision regarding
PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule (only as it relates to
PM2.5 Increments) revision into the State's implementation
plan. EPA will consider action on Georgia's July 26, 2012, submission
in a rulemaking separate from today's action.
    3. Mississippi: As noted in the table above, Mississippi has
addressed, and EPA has approved, the underlying PSD regulations to
support the State's program. In this action, EPA is proposing to
approve Mississippi's infrastructure submissions for the 1997 annual
and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS with regard to the PSD
requirements for prong 3 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i).
    4. South Carolina: In this action, EPA is proposing to approve
South Carolina's infrastructure submissions for the 1997 annual and
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS with regard to prong 3 of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i). Today's proposed approval of South Carolina's
implementation plan respecting prong 3 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)
is contingent upon EPA first taking final action to approve South
Carolina's May 1, 2012, SIP revision regarding the PM2.5 PSD
Increment-SILs-SMC Rule (only as it relates to PM2.5
Increments) revision into the State's implementation plan. EPA will
consider action on South Carolina's May 1, 2012, submission in a
rulemaking separate from today's action.
    Pending final approval of the above-described contingent SIP
revisions,

Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi and South Carolina have demonstrated that
major sources in each state are subject to PSD permitting programs to
comply with prong 3 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA for the
PM2.5 NAAQS. Therefore, EPA has made the preliminary
determination that, pending these contingent revisions, Alabama,
Georgia, Mississippi and South Carolina's SIP and practices will be
adequate for insuring compliance with the applicable PSD requirements
relating to interstate transport pollution for the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.

IV. Proposed Action

    As described above, EPA is proposing to approve SIP revisions for
Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi and South Carolina to incorporate
provisions into the States' implementation plans to address prong 3 of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA for both the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. Specifically, EPA is proposing to approve the
States' prong 3 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) submissions because they are
consistent with section 110 of the CAA. As noted above, the proposed
approval of Georgia's and South Carolina's implementation plan
respecting prong 3 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) is contingent upon EPA
first taking final action to approve the States' July 26, 2012, and May
1, 2012, SIP revisions, respectively, for the PM2.5 PSD
Increment-SILs-SMC Rule (only as it relates to PM2.5
Increments).

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. See 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 state law as meeting federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
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 Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    EPA has preliminarily determined that this proposed rule does not
have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000), because there are no ``substantial direct
effects'' on an Indian Tribe as a result of this action. EPA notes that
the Catawba Indian Nation Reservation is located within the South
Carolina. Pursuant to the Catawba Indian Claims Settlement Act, S.C.
Code Ann. 27-16-120, ``all state and local environmental laws and
regulations apply to the Catawba Indian Nation and Reservation and are
fully enforceable by all relevant state and local agencies and
authorities.'' Thus, while the South Carolina SIP applies to the
Catawba Reservation, because today's action is not proposing a
substantive revision to the South Carolina SIP, and is instead
proposing that the existing SIP will satisfy the prong 3 requirements
of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), EPA has preliminarily determined that
today's action will have no ``substantial direct effects'' on the
Catawba Indian Nation. EPA has also preliminarily determined that these
revisions will not impose any 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, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.

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

    Dated: November 21, 2012.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2012-29367 Filed 12-4-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 215 (Monday, November 7, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 78174-78175]
[FR Doc No: 2016-26871]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2016-0204]

Collection of Information Under Review by Office of Management
and Budget; OMB Control Number: 1625-0118

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Thirty-day notice requesting comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 the
U.S. Coast Guard is forwarding an Information Collection Request (ICR),
abstracted below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting approval for
reinstatement without change of the following collection of
information: 1625-0118, Various International

Agreement Certificates and Documents. Our ICR describes the information
we seek to collect from the public. Review and comments by OIRA ensure
we only impose paperwork burdens commensurate with our performance of
duties.

DATES: Comments must reach the Coast Guard and OIRA on or before
December 7, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number [USCG-2016-0204] to the Coast Guard using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Alternatively, you
may submit comments to OIRA using one of the following means:
    (1) Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Mail: OIRA, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503,
attention Desk Officer for the Coast Guard.
    (3) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. To ensure your comments are received in a
timely manner, mark the fax, attention Desk Officer for the Coast
Guard.
    A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the Internet
at http://www.regulations.gov. Additionally, copies are available from:
COMMANDANT (CG-612), ATTN: PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT MANAGER, U.S. COAST
GUARD, 2703 MARTIN LUTHER KING JR AVE SE., STOP 7710, WASHINGTON, DC
20593-7710.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Contact Mr. Anthony Smith, Office of
Information Management, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, or fax<PHONE_NUMBER>,
for questions on these documents.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    This Notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, as amended. An ICR is an application to
OIRA seeking the approval, extension, or renewal of a Coast Guard
collection of information (Collection). The ICR contains information
describing the Collection's purpose, the Collection's likely burden on
the affected public, an explanation of the necessity of the Collection,
and other important information describing the Collection. There is one
ICR for each Collection. The Coast Guard invites comments on whether
this ICR should be granted based on the Collection being necessary for
the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the
Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical
utility of the Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of
the Collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity
of information subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the
burden of the Collection on respondents, including the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology. These
comments will help OIRA determine whether to approve the ICR referred
to in this Notice.
    We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments
and related materials. Comments to Coast Guard or OIRA must contain the
OMB Control Number of the ICR. They must also contain the docket number
of this request, [USCG-2016-0204], and must be received by December 7,
2016.

Submitting Comments

    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions. Documents mentioned in this notice, and all public
comments, are in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and
can be viewed by following that Web site's instructions. Additionally,
if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will
be notified when comments are posted.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, you may review a Privacy Act notice regarding the Federal
Docket Management System in the March 24, 2005, issue of the Federal
Register (70 FR 15086).
    OIRA posts its decisions on ICRs online at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain after the comment period for each ICR. An OMB Notice
of Action on each ICR will become available via a hyperlink in the OMB
Control Number: 1625-0118.

Previous Request for Comments

    This request provides a 30-day comment period required by OIRA. The
Coast Guard published the 60-day notice (81 FR 21370, April 11, 2016)
required by 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2). That Notice elicited no comments.
Accordingly, no changes have been made to the Collections.

Information Collection Request

    Title: Various International Agreement Certificates and Documents.
    OMB Control Number: 1625-0118.
    Summary: This information collection is associated with the
Maritime Labour Convention (MLC), 2006. The Coast Guard established a
voluntary inspection program for vessels who wish to document
compliance with the requirements of the MLC. U.S. commercial vessels
that operate on international routes are eligible to participate. The
Coast Guard issues voluntary compliance certificates as proof of
compliance with the MLC.
    Need: This information is needed to determine if a vessel is in
compliance with the Maritime Labour Convention, 2006.
    Forms: CG-16450, Maritime Labour Certificate; CG-16450A, Interim
Maritime Labour Certificate; CG-16450B, Declaration of Maritime Labour
Compliance--Part I and CG-16450C, U.S. Coast Guard Maritime Labour
Convention, 2006 Inspection Report.
    Respondents: Vessel owners and operators.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Hour Burden Estimate: The estimated burden has decreased from 4,150
hours a year to 625 hours a year due to a decrease in the estimated
number of responses.
    Authority: The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. Chapter
35, as amended.

    Dated: October 27, 2016.
Brian P. Burns,
Deputy Chief Information Officer, U.S. Coast Guard.
[FR Doc. 2016-26871 Filed 11-4-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 155 (Tuesday, August 11, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48514-48515]
[FR Doc No: 2020-17499]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP19-480-000]

Texas Gas Transmission, LLC; Notice of Request for Extension of
Time

    Take notice that on July 29, 2020, Texas Gas Transmission, LLC
(Texas Gas) requested that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission) grant an extension of time, until August 20, 2021, to plug
and abandon an Injection/Withdrawal (I/W) well located at its Leesville
Storage Field (Project) authorized on August 19, 2019. The Project
would enable Texas Gas to plug and abandon I/W Well No. 5710, abandon
in-place its related well lateral line and side valve, and abandon by
removal its associated above-ground equipment at its Leesville Storage
Field in Lawrence County, Indiana.
    Texas Gas was initially required to complete all construction of
the Project by August 20, 2020. Texas Gas now requests a one-year
extension of this deadline through August 20, 2021. Texas Gas states
that completion of the abandonment activities associated with the
Project was scheduled for April 2020. However, due to the COVID-19
pandemic and the inability of contractor resources to safely travel and
perform the activities associated with the Project, Texas Gas was not
able to complete the abandonment activities. Accordingly, Texas Gas
proposes a new construction schedule, deferring the projected
completion date for the Project until 2021.
    This notice establishes a 15-calendar day intervention and comment
period deadline. Any person wishing to comment on Texas Gas' request
for an extension of time may do so. No reply comments or answers will
be considered. If you wish to obtain legal status by becoming a party
to the proceedings for this request, you should, on or before the
comment date stated below, file a motion to intervene in accordance
with the requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211) and the Regulations under the
Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.10).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Only motions to intervene from entities that were party to
the underlying proceeding will be accepted. Algonquin Gas
Transmission, LLC, 170 FERC ] 61,144, at P 39 (2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a matter of practice, the Commission itself generally acts on
requests for extensions of time to complete construction for Natural
Gas Act facilities when such requests are contested before order
issuance. For those extension requests that are contested,\2\ the
Commission will aim to issue an order acting on the request within 45
days.\3\ The Commission will address all arguments relating to whether
the applicant has demonstrated there is good cause to grant the
extension.\4\ The Commission will not consider arguments that re-
litigate the issuance of the certificate order,

including whether the Commission properly found the project to be in
the public convenience and necessity and whether the Commission's
environmental analysis for the certificate complied with the National
Environmental Policy Act.\5\ At the time a pipeline requests an
extension of time, orders on certificates of public convenience and
necessity are final and the Commission will not re-litigate their
issuance.\6\ The OEP Director, or his or her designee, will act on all
of those extension requests that are uncontested.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Contested proceedings are those where an intervenor disputes
any material issue of the filing. 18 CFR 385.2201(c)(1) (2019).
    \3\ Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC, 170 FERC ] 61,144, at P 40
(2020).
    \4\ Id. at P 40.
    \5\ Similarly, the Commission will not re-litigate the issuance
of an NGA section 3 authorization, including whether a proposed
project is not inconsistent with the public interest and whether the
Commission's environmental analysis for the permit order complied
with NEPA.
    \6\ Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC, 170 FERC ] 61,144, at P 40
(2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Federal Register, the Commission provides all interested persons an
opportunity to view and/or print the contents of this document via the
internet through the Commission's Home Page (http://www.ferc.gov) using
the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. At this time,
the Commission has suspended access to Commission's Public Reference
Room, due to the proclamation declaring a National Emergency concerning
the Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19), issued by the President on
March 13, 2020. For assistance, contact FERC at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call toll-free,<PHONE_NUMBER> or TYY,
(202) 502-8659.
    The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments
in lieu of paper using the ``eFile'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. In
lieu of electronic filing, you may submit a paper copy. Submissions
sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be addressed to: Kimberly D.
Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street
NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426. Submissions sent via any other
carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland
20852.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on August 20, 2020.

    Dated: August 5, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 18 CFR 2.1 (2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2020-17499 Filed 8-10-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


	           UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

      DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

             OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

                  WASHINGTON, D.C.

						Served:  February 23, 2004

____________________________________________

Notice Shortening Answer Period

Docket OST-2002-14049

____________________________________________

By a Notice of Action Taken, dated December 10, 2003, we granted a
90-day waiver of the startup dates as required by Order 2003-9-9 for
Evergreen International Airlines and Kalitta Air LLC for the two
frequencies that each carrier was awarded for their proposed Seoul,
Korea-Hong Kong services.  In granting that authority, we indicated that
several carriers had expressed interest in using one or more of the four
frequencies at issue on an interim basis.   We noted that Federal
Express had at the time of the Notice of Action Taken two pendente lite
frequencies for Seoul service.  The Notice of Action Taken permitted
Federal Express to extend its pendente lite frequencies at Seoul through
March 10, 2004 (the anticipated date for Evergreen and Kalitta to
startup Seoul-Hong Kong services).  Subsequently, by Notice of Action
Taken, January 9, 2004, we allocated one frequency each to Northwest
Airlines and Polar Air Cargo on an interim basis through March 10, 2004.

In a letter, dated February 20, 2004, Evergreen International Airlines
notified the Department and the parties to the proceeding that Evergreen
had decided to return to the Department its two frequencies for
fifth-freedom all-cargo services between Hong Kong and Seoul allocated
to Evergreen in the 2002/2003 Hong Kong Fifth-Freedom All-Cargo
Frequency Proceeding, Docket OST 2002-14049.

Under the Department’s rules, comments on Evergreen’s letter would
be due March 2, 2004.  We have decided to shorten the comment period and
to request comments on Evergreen’s letter by Thursday, February 26,
2004.  We request reply comments by Friday, February 27, 2004.

We will serve this notice by email or facsimile to all parties in Docket
OST-2002-14049, and we authorize comments to be served by facsimile or
email.

						PAUL L. GRETCH

			Director, Office of International Aviation

(SEAL)

Dated:  February 23, 2004

An electronic version of this notice is available on the World Wide Web
at

  HYPERLINK "http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp"
http://dms.dot.gov//reports/reports_aviation.asp

 The January 9 Notice of Action Taken also required Evergreen and
Kalitta to give notice two weeks prior to their inauguration of service
so that interim frequencies could be taken down in a timely fashion.
For a

March 10 startup date, the latest date to provide this Notice would be
February 25, 2004.  We expect Kalitta to provide this required notice in
a timely fashion.


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 OFFICE OF SOLID WASTE AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE Signed on September 18, 2002 MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Cross Program Ground Water Working Group FROM: Michael B. Cook, Director MElizabeth Southerlandfor Office of Emergency and Remedial Response TO: Addressees Purpose I invite your office to participate in a proposed cross program   Ground Water Working Group.  This group will identi@ and discuss ground water issues of importance to multiple EPA programs and develop creative options for dealing with the issues. This work is a high priority for OSWER Assistant Administrator Marianne Horinko and an important component of the One Cleanup Program Initiative.

Issues of Interest to Cleanup Programs As you know, State and Federal resources available for ground water protection and remediation programs are limited. Cleanup actions for contaminated ground water typically involve very long time frames after remedy construction activities have been completed. As a result, cleanup programs are devoting more and more resources to post construction oversight of ground water cleanup actions. As demand for staff and funding resources continues to increase, cleanup programs must look for opportunities to focus available resources where they will do the most good.

We would like assistance from your office in developing creative solutions for cleanup activities especially those concerning contaminated ground water. We believe the following issues are of interest for EPA cleanup programs, and expect other issues of interest will be identified by the   working group :

 What are the best ways for States and EPA to agree on which ground waters are high priority where   active  cleanup is especially important ( e. g., source water 2 protection areas), or low priority where   active  cleanup is less important ( e. g., management zones);

 What criteria should be used to determine when an ongoing cleanup action should be terminated, either because cleanup goals have been attained or because cleanup goals are not attainable ( Le., technically impracticable); and  What criteria should be used to determine that new or different cleanup technologies should be deployed ( e. g., aggressive source removal) to enhance or replace an ongoing cleanup action that is ineffective or inefficient?

Mission of Working Group This group will be charged with developing ideas to solve issues of interest to multiple EPA programs. As our cleanup programs mature, we recognize the need to develop tools to more effectively and efficiently move sites forward through the cleanup process to completion. Therefore, I envision that the mission of this group will be to:

0 0 seek ways to incorporate the latest science, better utilize innovative technologies, and integrate past experience in setting realistic cleanup objectives.

Work products of this group may include policy interpretations, new policies, case studies to test new policies, fact sheets, training seminars, research recommendations and other cross program products.

OERR Representatives I have asked Dana Tulis, Director of the Analytical OperationsBIata Quality Center, to be the management representative fiom OERR. Ken Lovelace, leader of the OEM Ground Water Team, will be OERR s staff representative. I propose that Dana chair the kick off meeting and serve as initial chair of the   Ground Water Working Group,  with support and assistance fiom Ken Lovelace. I also encourage that the chair rotate among OSWER program offices or as otherwise decided by the group.

Initial Meeting My office will be scheduling a meeting shortly to further discuss this proposal and to initiate this working group. Please discuss this proposal with your key managers and staff, and be prepared to send at least one representative to this meeting to discuss the level of interest and degree of participation by your office. Since we are looking for participants to bring experience and insight to the group, I suggest your oflice be represented at the Branch Chief or Senior Staff level. 0 3 Please respond by October 4,2002 regarding your office's interest in participating in the working group. You may send the name( s) of your representatives directly to Ken Lovelace. I have asked Ken to work with your representatives in setting up an initial meeting.

If you have any further questions regarding the formation of this Task Force, you may call Dana Tulis at ( 703) 603 8993 or Ken Lovelace at ( 703) 603 8787.

Addressees:

James Woolford, FFRRO/ OSWER ( 5106G) Robert Springer, OSW/ OSWER ( 5301W) Cliff Rothenstein, OUST/ OSWER ( 5401G) Walter Kovalick, TIO/ OSWER ( 5 102G) Elizabeth Cotsworth, OWOAR ( 6601J) Bany Breen, OSFWOECA Cynthia Dougherty, OGWDW/ OW ( 4601M) Steve Schmelling, NRMRL/ ORD ( Ada, OK)

cc: Tim Mott, FFRRO/ OSWER Betsy Southerland, OERIUOSWER Dana Tulis, OERIUOSWER Ken Lovelace, OEWOSWER Matt Charsky, OEWOSWER Guy Tomassoni, OSW/ OSWER Mark Mercer, OSW/ OSWER Hal White, OUST/ OSWER Jeff Heimerman, TIO/ OSWER Rich Steimle, TIO/ OSWER Ron Wilhelm, ORVVOAR Peter Neves, OSRFYOECA Roy Simon, OGWDW/ OW


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 108 (Friday, June 5, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 32136]
[FR Doc No: 2015-13697]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2014-N-1069]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office
of Management and Budget Approval; Blood Establishment Registration and
Product Listing, Form FDA 2830

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a
collection of information entitled, ``Blood Establishment Registration
and Product Listing, Form FDA 2830'' has been approved by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver
Spring, MD 20993-0002<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On February 09, 2015, the Agency submitted a
proposed collection of information entitled, ``Blood Establishment
Registration and Product Listing, Form FDA 2830'' to OMB for review and
clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor,
and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. OMB has now
approved the information collection and has assigned OMB control number
0910-0052. The approval expires on May 31, 2018. A copy of the
supporting statement for this information collection is available on
the Internet at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

    Dated: June 1, 2015.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-13697 Filed 6-4-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 225 (Wednesday, November 21, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 69837]
[FR Doc No: 2012-28085]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0003; FRL-9368-6]

SFIREG Full Committee; Notice of Public Meeting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Association of American Pesticide Control Officials
(AAPCO)/State FIFRA Issues Research and Evaluation Group (SFIREG) Full
Committee, will hold a 2-day meeting, beginning on December 10, 2012,
and ending December 11, 2012. This notice announces the location and
times for the meeting and sets forth the tentative agenda topics.

DATES: The meeting will be held on Monday, December 10, 2012, from 8:30
a.m. to 5 p.m. and Tuesday, December 11, 2012, from 8:30 a.m. to 12
noon.
    To request accommodation of a disability, please contact the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATON CONTACT, preferably at least 10
days prior to the meeting, to give EPA as much time as possible to
process your request.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at EPA, One Potomac Yard (South
Bldg.), 2777 Crystal Dr., Arlington VA, 1st Floor, South Conference
Room.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ron Kendall, Field External Affairs
Division (7506P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Grier Stayton, SFIREG Executive
Secretary, P.O. Box 466, Milford, DE 19963; telephone number: (302)
422-8152; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email 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
interested in pesticide regulation issues affecting States and any
discussion between EPA and SFIREG on the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) field implementation issues
related to human health, environmental exposure to pesticides, and
insight into EPA's decisionmaking process. You are invited and
encouraged to attend the meetings and participate as appropriate.
Potentially affected entities may include, but are not limited to:
    Those persons who are or may be required to conduct testing of
chemical substances under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act
(FFDCA) or FIFRA and those who sell, distribute, or use pesticides, as
well as any non-government organization.
    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?

    The docket for this action, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0003, is available at http://www.regulations.gov, or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), EPA West Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open
from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal
holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202)
566-1744, and the telephone number for the OPP Docket is (703) 305-
5805. Please review the visitor instructions and additional information
about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Tentative Agenda Topics

    1. Responses to SFIREG Pyrethroid labeling issue letter.
    2. Cooperative Agreement Guidance/Grant Template Discussion.
    3. EPA Region/State Lead Agency Relationships/Roles.
    4. Pollinator Protection Issues.
    5. Issue Paper: Methomyl Fly Bait Restricted Use Classification.
    6. Issue Paper: Defining Aquatic Habitat on Label.
    7. Regional Issues/Responses to pre-SFIREG Questionnaire.
    8. ``State Regulator in Residence'' Program.
    9. Tribal Certification Policy Implementation.
    10. Regulating Effects of Pesticides Outside Control of Applicator.
    11. Performance Measures and How They Will be Implemented.

III. How can I request to participate in this meeting?

    This meeting is open for the public to attend. You may attend the
meeting without further notification. If requesting special
accommodations, please see DATES.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.

    Dated: November 6, 2012.
Robert C. McNally,
Acting Director, Field External Affairs Division, Office of Pesticide
Programs.
[FR Doc. 2012-28085 Filed 11-20-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 68 (Monday, April 9, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15140-15141]
[FR Doc No: 2018-07137]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
corporate filings:

    Docket Numbers: EC18-79-000.
    Applicants: MDU Resources Group, Inc., Ace Wind LLC, Thunder Spirit
Wind, LLC.
    Description: Application of MDU Resources Group, Inc., et al. for
Authorization under FPA Section 203 for Disposition of Jurisdictional
Facilities, et al.
    Filed Date: 4/2/18.
    Accession Number: 20180402-5400.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/23/18.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER10-3199-004.
    Applicants: MDU Resources Group, Inc.
    Description: Supplement to December 29, 2017 Updated Market
Analysis in the Central Region of MDU Resources Group, Inc.
    Filed Date: 4/2/18.
    Accession Number: 20180402-5404.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/23/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-728-001.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: Compliance filing: 2018-04-03 Petition for Tariff
Waiver to Delay Implementation RAAIM Methodology to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 4/3/18.
    Accession Number: 20180403-5114.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/24/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1263-001.
    Applicants: Pacific Gas and Electric Company.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Errata to Amendment No. 1 to
Westside Power Authority IA and WDT SA (SA 15) to be effective 6/1/
2018.
    Filed Date: 4/2/18.
    Accession Number: 20180402-5162.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/23/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1264-001.
    Applicants: Westar Energy, Inc.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amendment to MPS Electric
Interconnection Agreement to be effective 5/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 4/2/18.
    Accession Number: 20180402-5184
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/23/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1267-001.
    Applicants: South Central MCN LLC.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: Amended OATT Tariff Filing to be
effective 3/31/2018.

    Filed Date: 4/2/18.
    Accession Number: 20180402-5274.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/23/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1286-000.
    Applicants: FirstEnergy Solutions Corp.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to Reactive
Service Rate Schedule FERC No. 1 to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 4/2/18.
    Accession Number: 20180402-5301.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/23/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1287-000.
    Applicants: ISO New England Inc., New England Power Pool
Participants Committee.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: ISO-NE and NEPOOL; Forward
Capacity Market Revisions to be effective 6/1/2018.
    Filed Date: 4/2/18.
    Accession Number: 20180402-5324.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/23/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1288-000.
    Applicants: California Independent System Operator Corporation.
    Description: Compliance filing: 2018-04-02 Petition for Tariff
Waiver to Delay Implementation RAAIM Methodology to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 4/2/18.
    Accession Number: 20180402-5364.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/23/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1289-000.
    Applicants: Industrial Assets, Inc.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Baseline new to be effective
6/2/2018.
    Filed Date: 4/3/18.
    Accession Number: 20180403-5000.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/24/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1290-000.
    Applicants: NSTAR Electric Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Design Engineering
Construction Agreement between NSTAR and New England Power Co to be
effective 4/3/2018.
    Filed Date: 4/3/18.
    Accession Number: 20180403-5118.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/24/18.

    Docket Numbers: ER18-1291-000.
    Applicants: Midcontinent Independent System Operator, Inc., Ameren
Illinois Company.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: 2018-04-03_SA 3028 Ameren
IL-Prairie Power Project#12 Atkinson to be effective 3/8/2018.
    Filed Date: 4/3/18.
    Accession Number: 20180403-5131.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 4/24/18.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: April 3, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-07137 Filed 4-6-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: August 26, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 165)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 52480-52482]
[DOCID:fr26au10-19]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-0862; Directorate Identifier 2010-CE-040-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; SOCATA Model TBM 700 Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above that would supersede an existing AD. This
proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to
identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The
MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:

    During a SOCATA flight test, it was noted some difficulties for
the pilot to release oxygen. After investigation it was found that,
due to the design of the oxygen generator release pin, one of the
mask's lanyard linked to the pin could be jammed when it is pulled
by a pilot or a passenger.
    This condition, if not corrected, would lead, in case of an
emergency procedure due to decompression, to a risk of generator
fault with subsequent lack of oxygen on crew and/or passenger.

The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the
unsafe condition described in the MCAI.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 12,
2010.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Management Facility
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street
address for the Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Albert Mercado, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2010-0862;
Directorate Identifier 2010-CE-040-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    On November 6, 2009, we issued AD 2009-23-12, Amendment 39-16086
(74 FR 58539; November 13, 2009). That AD required actions intended to
address an unsafe condition on the products listed above. AD 2009-23-12
revised AD 2009-13-05 (74 FR 29126, June 19, 2009), which was intended
to address an unsafe condition on the products listed above.
    Since we issued AD 2009-23-12, SOCATA has developed a modification
that is a terminating action to address the unsafe condition.
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued AD
No.: 2010-0090, dated May 18, 2010 (referred to after this as ``the
MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The
MCAI states:

    During a SOCATA flight test, it was noted some difficulties for
the pilot to release oxygen. After investigation it was found that,
due to the design of the oxygen generator release pin, one of the
mask's lanyard linked to the pin could be jammed when it is pulled
by a pilot or a passenger.
    This condition, if not corrected, would lead, in case of an
emergency procedure due to decompression, to a risk of generator
fault with subsequent lack of oxygen on crew and/or passenger.
    For the reason described above, SOCATA released Pilot Operating
Handbook (POH) Temporary Revision (TR) 03 which asks, in case of
failure to release oxygen, to pull on the other mask lanyard in
order to activate the oxygen generator. The Emergency AD 2009-0096-E
was issued to mandate the follow-up of these actions by the
operators in case of failure. This EAD was subsequently revised into
AD 2009-0096R1 in order to clarify the applicability.
    A SOCATA modification enabling to solve this issue has been
developed. Consequently, this new AD, superseding EASA AD 2009-
0096R1 retaining its requirements, requires implementing the
modification which is a terminating action.

You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

Relevant Service Information

    SOCATA has issued SOCATA TBM 700 A & B Pilot's Operating Handbook
(POH), Temporary Revision No. 3, dated March 2009; and DAHER-SOCATA TBM
Aircraft Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 70-168, dated December 2009. The
actions described in this service information are intended to correct
the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they
have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and
service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because
we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists
and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type
design.

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service
Information

    We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in
general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it
necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the
AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these
changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information
provided in the MCAI and related service information.
    We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those
in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are
highlighted in a NOTE within the proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 126 products of U.S.
registry. We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per
product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The
average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost
about $66 per product.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on
U.S. operators to be $19,026, or $151 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have 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.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

    1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Amendment 39-16086 (74 FR
58539; November 13, 2009), and adding the following new AD:

SOCATA: Docket No. FAA-2010-0862; Directorate Identifier 2010-CE-
040-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by October 12, 2010.

Affected ADs

    (b) This AD supersedes AD 2009-23-12, Amendment 39-16086.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Model TBM 700 airplanes, serial numbers 1
through 204, 206 through 239, and 241 through 243, that are:
    (i) Certificated in any category; and
    (ii) equipped with a chemical oxygen generation system.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 35: Oxygen.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
    During a SOCATA flight test, it was noted some difficulties for
the pilot to release oxygen. After investigation it was found that,
due to the design of the oxygen generator release pin, one of the
mask's lanyard linked to the pin could be jammed when it is pulled
by a pilot or a passenger.
    This condition, if not corrected, would lead, in case of an
emergency procedure due to decompression, to a risk of generator
fault with subsequent lack of oxygen on crew and/or passenger.
    For the reason described above, SOCATA released Pilot Operating
Handbook (POH) Temporary Revision (TR) 03 which asks, in case of
failure to release oxygen, to pull on the other mask lanyard in
order to activate the oxygen generator. The Emergency AD 2009-0096-E
was issued to mandate the follow-up of these actions by the
operators in case of failure. This EAD was subsequently revised into
AD 2009-0096R1 in order to clarify the applicability.
    A SOCATA modification enabling to solve this issue has been
developed. Consequently, this new AD, superseding EASA AD 2009-
0096R1 retaining its requirements, requires implementing the
modification which is a terminating action.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) Unless already done, do the following actions:
    (1) Before further flight after the effective date of this AD,
insert Page 3.13.5 of Temporary Revision No. 3, dated March 2009,
into the Emergency Procedures section and the Limitations section of
SOCATA TBM 700 A & B Pilot's Operating Handbook (POH).
    (2) Within 7 months after the effective date of this AD or 100
hours time-in-service (TIS) after the effective date of this AD,
whichever occurs first, replace the existing oxygen generator
release pin, part number (P/N) T700A3510038100, with an open pin, P/
N T700A351004410000, using the accomplishment instructions of DAHER-
SOCATA TBM Aircraft Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 70-168, dated
December 2009.
    (3) Upon replacement of the existing oxygen generator release
pin with an open pin, P/N T700A351004410000, using the
accomplishment instructions of SB No. 70-168, remove Page 3.13.5 of
Temporary Revision No. 3, dated March 2009, as inserted by paragraph
(f)(1) of this AD from the POH.
    (4) After the effective date of this AD, do not install in any
affected airplane an oxygen generator release pin, P/N
T700A3510038100.

FAA AD Differences

    Note:  This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information
as follows: No differences.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to ATTN: Albert Mercado, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small
Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri
64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>. Before using
any approved AMOC on any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify
your appropriate principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight
Standards District Office (FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.
    (3) Reporting Requirements: For any reporting requirement in
this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et.seq.), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
approved the information collection requirements and has assigned
OMB Control Number 2120-0056.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.
2010-0090, dated May 18, 2010; SOCATA TBM 700 A & B Pilot's
Operating
    Handbook (POH), Temporary Revision No. 3, dated March 2009; and
DAHER-SOCATA TBM Aircraft Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 70-168,
dated December 2009, for related information.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on August 20, 2010.
John Colomy,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-21250 Filed 8-25-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 160 (Monday, August 19, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 50436]
[FR Doc No: 2013-20079]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID: FEMA-2013-0022; OMB No. 1660-0112]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for OMB
Review; Comment Request

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will submit the
information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and
Budget for review and clearance in accordance with the requirements of
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The submission will describe the
nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents,
the estimated burden (i.e., the time, effort and resources used by
respondents to respond) and cost, and the actual data collection
instruments FEMA will use.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before September 18, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit written comments on the proposed information
collection to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office
of Management and Budget. Comments should be addressed to the Desk
Officer for the Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, and sent via electronic mail to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or
copies of the information collection should be made to Director,
Records Management Division, 1800 South Bell Street, Arlington, VA
20598-3005, facsimile number<PHONE_NUMBER>, or email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Collection of Information

    Title: FEMA Preparedness Grants: Transit Security Grant Program
(TSGP).
    OMB Number: 1660-0112.
    Type of information collection: Extension, without change, of a
currently approved information collection.
    Form Titles and Numbers: FEMA Form 089-4, TSGP Investment
Justification Template.
    Abstract: The TSGP is an important component of the Department of
Homeland Security's effort to enhance the security of the Nation's
critical infrastructure. The program provides funds to owners and
operators of transit systems to protect critical surface transportation
infrastructure and the traveling public from acts of terrorism, major
disasters, and other emergencies.
    Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Government.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 123.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 5,043 hours.
    Estimated Cost: The estimated annual cost to respondents for the
hour burden is $147,053.88. There are no annual costs to respondents
operations and maintenance costs for technical services. There is no
annual start-up or capital costs. The cost to the Federal Government is
$747,877.20.

    Dated: August 9, 2013.
Charlene D. Myrthil,
Director, Records Management Division, Mission Support Bureau, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2013-20079 Filed 8-16-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-19-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 104 (Monday, June 1, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 30936-30938]
[FR Doc No: 2015-13159]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2015-0388]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Lakeside July 4th Fireworks, Lake Erie; Lakeside, OH

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing temporary safety zone in the
waters of Lake Erie in the vicinity of Lakeside, OH. This zone is
intended to restrict vessels from a portion of Lake Erie during the
fireworks event at Lakeside. This temporary safety zone is necessary to
protect people and vessels from the hazards associated with this event.

DATES: This rule is effective from 9:30 p.m. until 10:45 p.m. on July
4, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2015-0388 and are available online
by going to www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2015-0388 in the
``Keyword'' box, and then clicking ``search.'' They are also available
for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30),
U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary final rule, contact or email MST1 Brett A. Kreigh, U.S. Coast
Guard Marine Safety Unit Toledo, at<PHONE_NUMBER> or
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the docket,
call Cheryl Collins, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone 202-
366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
TFR Temporary Final Rule

A. Regulatory History and Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because doing so would be impracticable and
contrary to the public interest. The details of this emergent event
were not received in sufficient time for the Coast Guard to solicit
public comments before the start of the fireworks. Thus, waiting for a
notice and comment period to run would inhibit the Coast Guard from
protecting the public and vessels from the hazards associated with the
maritime fireworks displays.

B. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis and authorities for this rule are found in 33
U.S.C. 1231, 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33
CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat.
2064; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1, which
collectively authorize the Coast Guard to establish and define
regulatory safety zones.
    A fireworks display will be taking place on Lake Erie, in the
vicinity of Lakeside, OH. The temporary safety zone is necessary to
ensure the safety of vessels and spectators from hazards associated
with fireworks display. Such hazards include the explosive danger of
fireworks and debris falling into the water that may cause death or
serious bodily harm. Establishing a safety zone to control vessel
movement around the location of the event will help ensure the safety
of persons and property at this event and help minimize the associated
risks.

C. Discussion of Rule

    Because of the aforementioned safety concerns, The Captain of the
Port Detroit has determined a temporary safety zone is necessary to
ensure the safety of spectators and vessels during the setup, loading,
and launching of the Lakeside July 4th Fireworks Display. The Lakeside
July 4th Fireworks Display safety zone will encompass all U.S.
navigable waters of Sandusky Bay within a 600-foot radius of the
fireworks barge located at position 41[deg]32'54'' N., 082[deg]44'52''
W. (NAD 83).
    Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety zone is
prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Detroit or his
designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his on-
scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16. All persons
and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the Coast Guard
Captain of the Port or the on-scene representative.

D. Regulatory Analyses

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

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Order 12866 or under
section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and Budget
has not reviewed it under those Orders. It is not ``significant'' under
the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS). We conclude that this rule is not a significant
regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have minimal
impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies, will not
adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will
not raise any novel legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by
this rule will be relatively small and enforced for relatively short
time. Also, the safety zone is designed to minimize their impact on
navigable waters. Furthermore, restrictions on vessel movement within
the area of the safety zone expected to be minimal. Under certain
conditions, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when
permitted by the Captain of the Port.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this 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 might be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels
intending to transit or anchor in designated portions of Lake Erie, OH
from 9:30 p.m. through 10:45 p.m. on July 4, 2015.
    The safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: The
safety zone will be activated, and thus subject to enforcement, for
only a short period of time. Traffic may be allowed to pass through the
zone with the permission of the Captain of the Port. The Captain of the
Port can be reached via VHF channel 16. Before the activation of the
zone, we would issue local Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this 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 above.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

4. 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).

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and determined
that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

6. Protest Activities

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

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

8. Taking of Private Property

    This rule will not cause a taking of private property or otherwise
have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights.

9. Civil Justice Reform

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

10. Protection of Children

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

11. Indian Tribal Governments

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

12. Energy Effects

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' under Executive
Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

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

14. 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 (NEPA) (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 the establishment of safety zone and,
therefore it 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.

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; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703;
50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub.
L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T09-0388 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T09-0388  Safety Zone; Lakeside July 4th Fireworks, Lake
Erie; Lakeside, OH.

    (a) Location. The following area is a temporary safety zone:
Lakeside July 4th Fireworks, all U.S. navigable waters of Lake Erie
within a 600-foot radius of the fireworks launch site located at
position 41[deg]32'54'' N., 082[deg]44'52'' W. All coordinates are
North American Datum 1983 (NAD83).
    (b) Effective and Enforcement Period. The safety zone will be
effective and enforced from 9:30 p.m. through 10:45 p.m. on July 4,
2015.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec.  165.23 of this part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within
these safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the
Port, Sector Detroit or his designated on-scene representative.
    (2) The safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may
be permitted by the Captain of the Port, Sector Detroit or his
designated on-scene representative.
    (3) The ``on-scene representative'' of the Captain of the Port,
Sector Detroit is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty
officer or a Federal, State, or local law enforcement officer
designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port, Sector Detroit to
act on his behalf.
    (4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety
zone shall contact the Captain of the Port, Sector Detroit or his on-
scene representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the
Port, Sector Detroit or his on-scene representative may be contacted
via VHF Channel 16 or at<PHONE_NUMBER>. Vessel operators given
permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all
directions given to them by the Captain of the Port, Sector Detroit, or
his on-scene representative.

    Dated: May 14, 2015.
Scott B. Lemasters,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Detroit.
[FR Doc. 2015-13159 Filed 5-29-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


MEMORANDUM FROM: Patrick Dolwick, Physical Scientist TO: CAIR Reconsideration Docket ( OAR 2003 0053)

RE: Impacts of a Discrepancy in the Analysis Assessing Significance of Upwind State Ozone Contributions EPA has uncovered a small discrepancy in the final rule's technical analysis for assessing significance of upwind states' contribution to downwind states' ozone nonattainment. This discrepancy does not affect the ultimate conclusions as to which States should be included in the CAIR ozone control region.

As explained in the support documentation for the rule1, EPA used an air quality model to calculate specific metrics to determine how individual States affected projected residual 8 hour ozone nonattainment areas. Various criteria were established to determine if these impacts were significant from an air quality perspective based on the magnitude, frequency, and relative contribution of the impacts. See generally 70 FR at 25191 192. One of metrics used to consider the relative contribution was the average percent contribution to nonattainment from source apportionment modeling. This metric was one of several metrics in the initial screening test. Values of the average percent contribution metric that were less than 1% ( after rounding to the nearest integer) were determined not to be significant and were dropped from further evaluation. For the final CAIR modeling, values of this metric were calculated to one place to the right of the decimal, after rounding. EPA then rounded these data to the nearest integer. The net effect was an inappropriate " double rounding" for values that were between 0.450 and 0.499 percent2.

EPA has recalculated the values for the average percent contribution metric without the inappropriate double rounding. Twenty upwind State to downwind nonattainment area linkages had average percent contribution values between 0.450 and 0.499 percent that were erroneously rounded to 1% ( rather than 0%). Of these twenty linkages, 19 did not pass other screening criteria, so the linkages were correctly categorized as not significant despite the " double rounding" in the calculation of the average percent contribution metric. The remaining linkage ( Mississippi's contribution to Fulton Co., GA) did pass the other screening tests, but was subsequently determined via other criteria not to be significant based on EPA's evaluation of all of the contribution metrics. The table presented below summarizes the significance assessment for these 20 linkages.

1 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency: Technical Support Document for the Final Clean Air Interstate Rule   Air Quality Modeling, EPA Docket # 2003 0053, March 2005, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27711, pp 26 40. 2 The " double rounding" of the average percent contribution metric did not occur in the calculations performed as part of the ozone significant contribution analysis in the CAIR proposal. While the " double counting" discrepancy did not ultimately affect the significance of any individual State receptor linkage, EPA does plan to correct the ozone contribution metrics tables in Appendix G of the CAIR Air Quality Modeling Technical Support Document, as part of the overall CAIR reconsideration process.

Upwind State Projected 2010 Residual Nonattainment Area Average Percent Contribution ( 2 digits) Average % Contribution ( correctly rounded to nearest integer) Pass All Other Screening Tests? Determined to be Significant in CAIR Final? AR Anne Arundel MD 0.45% 0% NO NO AR Sheboygan WI 0.49% 0% NO NO IA Kent RI 0.46% 0% NO NO IA Middlesex CT 0.47% 0% NO NO IN Galveston TX 0.47% 0% NO NO KY Hunterdon NJ 0.48% 0% NO NO MA Middlesex CT 0.46% 0% NO NO MI Sheboygan WI 0.46% 0% NO NO MO New Haven CT 0.47% 0% NO NO MO Kent RI 0.48% 0% NO NO MO Middlesex CT 0.48% 0% NO NO MO Suffolk NY 0.48% 0% NO NO MS Fulton GA 0.49% 0% YES NO MS Macomb MI 0.49% 0% NO NO PA Harris TX 0.49% 0% NO NO TN Anne Arundel MD 0.47% 0% NO NO TN Arlington VA 0.47% 0% NO NO WI Middlesex CT 0.47% 0% NO NO WI Arlington VA 0.49% 0% NO NO WV Galveston TX 0.46% 0% NO NO Note: In the " Pass all other screening tests" column, a " no" means that the upwind State to downwind nonattainment linkage is not significant based on the initial screening test. " Yes" means that the linkage was evaluated further using all the metrics to determine whether or not the linkage was significant.