[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 121 (Friday, June 22, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28980-28981]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13373]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2018-0129; Airspace Docket No. 18-AEA-4]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of Class E Airspace; Altoona, PA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends amend Class E surface area airspace and
Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet or more above the
surface at Altoona-Blair County Airport, Altoona, PA. This action
accommodates airspace reconfiguration due to the decommissioning of
Altoona VHF omnidirectional range navigation system (VOR) and
cancellation of the VOR approaches. Controlled airspace is necessary
for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR)
operations at this airport.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, September 13, 2018. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can
contact the Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11B at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go
to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Fornito, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 1701
Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it amends Class E airspace at Altoona-Blair County Airport, Altoona,
PA, to ensure the efficient use of airspace within the National
Airspace System.

History

    The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal
Register (83 FR 11446, March 15, 2018) for Docket No. FAA-2018-0129 to
amend Class E surface area airspace, and Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface at Altoona-Blair County Airport,
Altoona, PA. Interested parties were invited to participate in this
rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the
FAA. No comments were received.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6002 and
6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11B dated August 3, 2017, and
effective September 15, 2017, which is incorporated by reference in 14
CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document
will be published subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2017, and effective September 15,
2017. FAA Order 7400.11B is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11B lists Class A,
B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 by amending Class E surface area airspace, and Class E airspace
extending upward from 700 feet or more above the surface due to the
decommissioning of the Altoona VOR and cancelation of associated
approaches at Altoona-Blair County Airport, Altoona, PA.
    The Class E surface area airspace is amended to within a 4.7-mile
(from a 4-mile) radius of the airport, with a segment 1.0-mile each
side of the 026[deg] bearing from the airport to 8.7 miles northeast.
The Altoona VOR segment is removed.
    The Class E airspace area extending upward from 700 feet above the
surface is amended to within an 11.2-mile (from a 6.5-mile) radius of
the airport. These changes enhance the safety and management of IFR
operations at the airport.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

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

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies and
Procedures,'' paragraph 5-6.5a. This airspace action is not expected to
cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no
extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an
environmental assessment.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation
Administration Order 7400.11B, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, dated August 3, 2017, effective September 15, 2017, is amended
as follows:

Paragraph 6002 Class E Surface Area Airspace.

* * * * *

AEA PA E2 Altoona, PA [Amended]

Altoona-Blair County Airport, PA
    (Lat. 40[deg]17'47'' N, long. 78[deg]19'12'' W)

    Within a 4.7-mile radius of Altoona-Blair County Airport, and
within 1.0 mile each side of the 026[deg] bearing from the airport
to 8.7 miles northeast of the airport.

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

AEA PA E5 Altoona, PA [Amended]

Altoona-Blair County Airport, PA
    (Lat. 40[deg]17'47'' N, long. 78[deg]19'12'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within an 11.2-mile radius of Altoona-Blair County Airport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on June 14, 2018.
Ken Brissenden,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air
Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2018-13373 Filed 6-21-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 144 (Friday, July 26, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36151-36152]
[FR Doc No: 2019-15870]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-86422]

Order Granting Application by: Nasdaq BX, Inc., Nasdaq GEMX, LLC,
Nasdaq ISE, LLC, Nasdaq MRX, LLC, and Nasdaq Phlx LLC for Exemption
Pursuant to Section 36(a) of the Exchange Act From the Rule Filing
Requirements of Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act With Respect to
Certain Rules Incorporated by Reference

July 22, 2019.
    Nasdaq BX, Inc. (``BX''), Nasdaq GEMX, LLC (``GEMX''), Nasdaq ISE,
LLC (``ISE''), Nasdaq MRX, LLC (``MRX''), and Nasdaq Phlx LLC
(``Phlx'') (each the ``Exchange'' and collectively, the ``Exchanges'')
have filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'')
an application for an exemption under Section 36(a)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Exchange Act'') \1\ from the rule
filing requirements of Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act \2\ with
respect to certain rules of the Nasdaq Stock Market, LLC (``Nasdaq'')
\3\ that the Exchanges seek to incorporate by reference.\4\ Section 36
of the Exchange Act authorizes the Commission to conditionally or
unconditionally exempt any person, security, or transaction, or any
class thereof, from any provision of the Exchange Act or rule
thereunder, if necessary or appropriate in the public interest and
consistent with the protection of investors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78mm(a)(1).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b).
    \3\ Nasdaq is an affiliate of the Exchanges.
    \4\ See Letter from Angela Dunn, Senior Associate General
Counsel, Nasdaq Inc., to Vanessa Countryman, Acting Secretary,
Commission, dated April 30, 2019 (``Exemptive Request'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchanges each filed a proposed rule change under Section 19(b)
of the Exchange Act to delete their existing registration,
qualification, and continuing education rules \5\ and incorporate by
reference Nasdaq's General 4 rules (``Nasdaq Registration and
Continuing Education Rules''), as such rules may be in effect from time
to time. The proposed rule changes would

make the Nasdaq Registration and Continuing Education Rules applicable
to the Exchanges' members, member organizations (as applicable),
associated persons, and other persons subject to their jurisdiction as
though such rules were fully set forth within each Exchange's rulebook.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 85726 (April 26,
2019) (SR-BX-2019-010), 85737 (April 26, 2019) (SR-GEMX-2019-05),
85728 (April 26, 2019) (SR-ISE-2019-12), 85730 (April 26, 2019) (SR-
MRX-2019-09), and 85761 (May 2, 2019) (SR-Phlx-2019-18). Although
the proposed rule changes were filed pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Exchange Act, and thereby became effective
upon filing with the Commission, the Exchanges stipulated in their
proposals that the incorporation by reference would not be operative
until such time as the Commission grants this exemptive request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchanges have requested, pursuant to Rule 0-12 under the
Exchange Act,\6\ that the Commission grant the Exchanges an exemption
from the rule filing requirements of Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act
for changes to each Exchange's rules that are effected solely by virtue
of a change to the Nasdaq Registration and Continuing Education Rules.
Specifically, the Exchanges request that they be permitted to
incorporate by reference changes made to the Nasdaq Registration and
Continuing Education Rules without the need for each Exchange to
separately file with the Commission the same proposed rule changes
pursuant to Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 17 CFR 240.0-12.
    \7\ See Exemptive Request, supra note 4, at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchanges represent that the Nasdaq Registration and Continuing
Education Rules are not trading rules.\8\ Moreover, the Exchanges state
that they propose to incorporate by reference categories of rules
(rather than individual rules within a category) that are regulatory in
nature.\9\ The Exchanges also represent that, as a condition of this
exemption, they would provide written notice to their members whenever
Nasdaq proposes a change to the Nasdaq Registration and Continuing
Education Rules.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Id.
    \9\ Id.
    \10\ The Exchanges state that they will provide notice on their
websites in the same section they use to post their own proposed
rule change filings and within the timeframe required by Rule 19b-
4(l). In addition, the Exchanges state that their websites will
include a link to the Nasdaq website where the proposed rule change
filings are located. Id at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the Exchanges, this exemption is necessary and
appropriate because it will result in the Exchanges' rules being
consistent with the relevant cross-referenced Nasdaq Registration and
Continuing Education Rules at all times, thus ensuring that the
Exchanges and Nasdaq maintain consistent registration, qualification,
and continuing education rules for their respective members, associated
persons, and other persons subject to their jurisdiction.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Id at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission has issued exemptions similar to the Exchanges'
request.\12\ The Commission has previously outlined standards for
reviewing exemption requests from self-regulatory organizations
(``SROs''), provided that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See, e.g., Securities Exchange Act Release Nos. 83887
(August 20, 2018), 83 FR 42722 (August 23, 2018) (order granting
exemptive request from Exchanges to incorporate by reference BX's
rules for investigatory, disciplinary, and adjudicatory proceedings)
(``Nasdaq Investigatory Rules Order''); 80338 (March 29, 2017), 82
FR 16464 (April 4, 2017) (order granting exemptive request from MIAX
PEARL, LLC relating to rules of Miami International Securities
Exchange, LLC incorporated by reference); 72650 (July 22, 2014), 79
FR 44075 (July 29, 2014) (order granting exemptive requests from
NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc. and Nasdaq relating to rules of NASDAQ OMX PHLX
LLC incorporated by reference); 67256 (June 26, 2012), 77 FR 39277
(July 2, 2012) (order approving SR-BX-2012-030 and granting
exemptive request relating to rules incorporated by reference by
NASDAQ OMX BX, Inc.); 61534 (February 18, 2010), 75 FR 8760
(February 25, 2010) (order granting BATS Exchange, Inc.'s exemptive
request relating to rules incorporated by reference by the BATS
Exchange Options Market rules); and 57478 (March 12, 2008), 73 FR
14521 (order approving SR-NASDAQ-2007-004 and SR-NASDAQ-2007-080,
and granting exemptive request relating to rules incorporated by
reference by the Nasdaq Options Market).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     An SRO wishing to incorporate rules of another SRO by
reference has submitted a written request for an order exempting it
from the requirement in Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act to file
proposed rule changes relating to the rules incorporated by reference,
has identified the applicable originating SRO(s), together with the
rules it wants to incorporate by reference, and otherwise has complied
with the procedural requirements set forth in the Commission's release
governing procedures for requesting exemptive orders pursuant to Rule
0-12 under the Exchange Act; \13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See 17 CFR 240.0-12 and Nasdaq Investigatory Rules Order,
supra note 12 at 42723.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The incorporating SRO has requested incorporation of
categories of rules (rather than individual rules within a category)
that are not trading rules (e.g., the SRO has requested incorporation
of rule such as margin, suitability, or arbitration); \14\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The incorporating SRO has reasonable procedures in place
to provide written notice to its members each time a change is proposed
to the incorporated rules of the other SRO.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission believes that the Exchanges have satisfied each of
these conditions. The Commission also believes that granting the
Exchanges an exemption from the rule filing requirements under Section
19(b) of the Exchange Act will promote efficient use of the
Commission's and the Exchanges' resources by avoiding duplicative rule
filings based on simultaneous changes to identical rule text sought by
more than one SRO. The Commission therefore finds it in the public
interest and consistent with the protection of investors to exempt the
Exchanges from the rule filing requirements under Section 19(b) of the
Exchange Act with respect to the Nasdaq Registration and Continuing
Education Rules described above to be incorporated by reference. This
exemption is conditioned upon the Exchanges promptly providing written
notice to their members whenever Nasdaq changes a rule which the
Exchanges have incorporated by reference.
    Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 36 of the Exchange
Act,\16\ that the Exchanges are exempt from the rule filing
requirements of Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act solely with respect
to changes to the rules identified in their request that incorporate by
reference certain Nasdaq rules, provided that the Exchanges promptly
provide written notice to their members whenever Nasdaq proposes to
change a rule that the Exchanges have incorporated by reference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78mm.
    \17\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\17\
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-15870 Filed 7-25-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 173 (Wednesday, September 7, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 55377]
[FR Doc No: 2011-22818]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12569-001]

Public Utility District No. 1 of Okanogan County, WA, Notice of
Availability of Final Environmental Assessment

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission or FERC's)
regulations, 18 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 380 (Order No.
486, 52 Federal Register [FR] 47897), the Office of Energy Projects has
reviewed the Public Utility District No. 1 of Okanogan County's
(Okanogan PUD's) application for license for the Enloe Hydroelectric
Project (FERC Project No. 12569), located on the Similkameen River near
the city of Oroville in Okanogan County, Washington. Part of the
project would occupy a total of 41.76 acres of federal lands
administered by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management.
    Staff prepared this final environmental assessment (EA), which
analyzes the potential environmental effects of licensing the project,
and concludes that licensing the project, with appropriate
environmental protective measures, would not constitute a major federal
action that would significantly affect the quality of the human
environment.
    A copy of the final EA is available for review at the Commission in
the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site
at http:[sol][sol]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. For assistance, contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at 1-866-208-3676,
or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    You may also register online at http:[sol][sol]www.ferc.gov/docs-
filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via e-mail of new filings and
issuances related to this or other pending projects. For assistance,
contact FERC Online Support.
    For further information, contact Kim Nguyen by telephone at (202)
502-6105, or by e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Dated: August 31, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-22818 Filed 9-6-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 205 (Wednesday, October 25, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49473-49475]
[FR Doc No: 2017-23124]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2017-0081]

Traffic Records Program Assessment Advisory; Public Comment

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

ACTION: Request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is
in the process of reviewing the Traffic Records Program Assessment
Advisory, DOT HS 811 644, (Advisory) and requests comments to determine
if updates or improvements are appropriate. States need timely,
accurate, complete, and uniform traffic records to identify and
prioritize traffic safety issues and to choose appropriate safety
countermeasures and evaluate their effectiveness. The Advisory provides
information on the contents, capabilities, and data quality attributes
of an effective traffic records system, and includes assessment
questions that qualified independent assessors use to evaluate the
capabilities of a State's traffic records systems. Based on the input
received in response to this notice, and NHTSA's experience in applying
the previous Advisory to conduct assessments in the past, we anticipate
issuing a revised Advisory by June 2018.

DATES: Written comments may be submitted to this agency and must be
received no later than December 26, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket ID number
NHTSA-2017-0081 by any of the following methods:
    Electronic Submissions: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the online instructions for submitting comments.
    Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30 U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590.
    Hand Delivery or Courier: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S.
Department of Transportation, West Building, Ground floor, Room W12-
140, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m. Eastern time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Regardless of how you submit your comments, you should identify the
Docket number of this notice.

    Instructions: For detailed instructions on submitting comments and
additional information, see http://www.regulations.gov. Note that all
comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
Please read the ``Privacy Act'' heading below.
    Privacy Act: Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all
contents received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual
submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf
of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's
complete Privacy Statement in the Federal Register published on April
11, 2000 (65 FR 19477-78) or you may visit http://docketsInfo.dot.gov.
    Confidential Information: If you wish to submit any information
under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit three copies of
your complete submission, including the information you claim to be
confidential business information, to the Chief Counsel, NHTSA, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001. In addition, you
should submit two copies, from which you have deleted the claimed
confidential business information, to Docket Management at the address
given above under
    When you send a comment containing information claimed to be
confidential business information, you should include a cover letter
setting forth the information specified in our confidential business
information regulation. (49 CFR part 512) Docket: For access to the
docket to read background documents or comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov or the street address listed above. Follow the
online instructions for accessing the dockets.
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents or
comments received, go to http://www.regulations.gov at any time or to
West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.,
Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For programmatic issues: John Siegler,
Office of Traffic Records and Analysis, NVS-423, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington,
DC 20590. Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. For legal issues: Megan Brown,
Office of Chief Counsel, NCC-113, National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
Telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: States need timely, accurate, complete, and
uniform traffic records data to identify and prioritize traffic safety
issues, and choose appropriate safety countermeasures and evaluate
their effectiveness. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
published the Traffic Records Program Assessment Advisory (DOT HS 811
644) in 2012 to provide guidance on the peer review of States' crash,
driver, vehicle, roadway, citation and adjudication, and injury
surveillance systems.
    The Advisory describes the capabilities of an ideal traffic records
system and includes a set of questions, which are the basis for an in-
depth review of State highway safety data and State traffic records
systems. Specifically, these questions examine how the State Highway
Safety Office (SHSO), State Traffic Records Coordinating Committee
(TRCC), and the representative TRCC agencies plan, collect, manage, and
integrate information from the crash, driver, vehicle, roadway,
citation and adjudication, and injury surveillance data systems.
    In order to qualify for a State Traffic Safety Information System
Improvements grant under 23 U.S.C. 405(c), a State must certify that
``an assessment of the State's highway safety data and traffic records
system was conducted or updated during the preceding 5 years.'' \1\ The
2012 Advisory was created in response to a GAO recommendation that
``NHTSA take steps to ensure state traffic records assessments are
complete and consistent to provide an in-depth evaluation of all state
traffic safety data systems across all performance measures''.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 23 U.S.C. 405(c)(3)(E).
    \2\ U.S. Gov't Accountability Office, GAO-10-454, Traffic Safety
Data: State Data System Quality Varies and Limited Resources and
Coordination Can Inhibit Further Progress 41 (2010), available at
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-0-454.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Advisory is divided into nine topical areas: Traffic records
coordinating committee, strategic planning for traffic records systems,
crash data system, vehicle data system, driver data system, roadway
data system, citation and adjudication systems, injury surveillance
systems, and data use and integration. Each of these modules is further
subdivided into submodules: Description and contents, applicable
guidelines, data dictionaries, procedures and process flows, interface
with other traffic records components, and data quality and control.
Each assessment question is supplemented by ``suggested evidence'' and
linked to the associated narrative description of the ideal traffic
records system.
    Between 2012 and 2017, NHTSA conducted 55 traffic records
assessments where independent subject matter expert assessors evaluated
the response to each question and rated State responses as either (1)
meeting the description of the ideal traffic records system, (2)
partially meeting the description, or (3) not meeting the description.
These assessments identified the strengths and opportunities of each
component of the State's traffic records systems and provided States
with recommendations to improve their traffic records programs.
    During the first five-year assessment cycle (2012-2017), NHTSA
received feedback on the assessment process from State coordinators and
respondents as well as the assessment facilitators and assessors. NHTSA
intends to consider this feedback in addition to comments received on
this notice to update the Advisory. Specifically, NHTSA will revise as
appropriate the questions and evidence for the nine topical areas.
Based on the feedback received during the first assessment cycle,
anticipated changes may include updates to the ideal traffic records
system description, expansion of suggested evidence notes, alteration
and/or elimination of questions--particularly regarding performance
measures--and a restructuring of the Injury Surveillance System
section.
    NHTSA is seeking comment on the description of the ideal traffic
records system and associated assessment questions in the Advisory to
provide greater clarity and ease for both State respondents and
assessment teams. In undertaking this update to the Advisory, NHTSA
seeks to minimize the level of effort required by States while still
ensuring a robust evaluation of State traffic safety data systems that
States can use to inform improvements to traffic safety data systems.
The most helpful comments will suggest potential procedural changes
that will streamline the process or will provide feedback on how to
improve a specific question, its suggested evidence, and/or the
associated text found in the module introduction. The full text of the
Traffic Records Program Assessment Advisory, DOT HS 811 644, is
available at http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811644.pdf. NHTSA will
consider all comments received as part of its revision of the Advisory.
Comments will be addressed in a subsequent Federal Register notice that
announces the final version of the Advisory.

    Authority:  23 U.S.C. Section 405(c)(3)(E).

    Issued in Washington, DC.
Terry T. Shelton,
Associate Administrator, National Center for Statistics and Analysis.
[FR Doc. 2017-23124 Filed 10-24-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register: May 5, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 87)]
[Notices]
[Page 26486]
[DOCID:fr05my06-49]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP06-318-000]

Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America; Notice of Petition for
Waivers

April 27, 2006.
    Take notice that on April 25, 2006, Natural Gas Pipeline Company of
America (Natural) tendered for filing a petition for waiver of certain
provisions of Natural's FERC Gas Tariff, Sixth Revised Volume No.1, to
assist shippers in responding to a situation which will temporarily
reduce capacity on a portion of Natural's Amarillo system.
    Natural states that as part of its Pipeline Integrity Management
Program, Natural is evaluating sections of its Amarillo Mainline No. 3
from its Compressor Station No. 110 in Henry County, Illinois (CS10)
approximately 106 miles to Natural's Compressor Station 113 near
Joliet, Illinois in Will County. Natural states that these sections are
part of Natural's Segment No. 14.
    Natural states that it plans to run an in-line inspection tool for
one day through a portion of its Segment 14 on May 9, 2006. On May 24,
2006, Natural states that it plans to run a second in-line inspection
tool for one day through the same portion of its Segment 14. Natural
points out that these two pig runs will each necessitate a reduction in
available capacity through the affected area on days when the
inspection tool runs take place. Because it is possible additional
inspection operations may be needed, Natural asks that the waivers
apply during all outage periods that may occur between May 9, 2006 to
May 31, 2006.
    Natural requests that the Commission grant the subject petition for
waiver by May 5, 2006, to enable Natural's shippers to plan their
nominations for the weeks of May 8 and May 22 in advance of any service
reductions related to the two planned outage periods.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the date as indicated
below. Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of
that document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or
protest on or before the intervention or protest date need not serve
motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov.
 Persons unable to file electronically should submit an

original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the

``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For

TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Intervention and Protest Date: 5 p.m. eastern time May 2, 2006.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E6-6832 Filed 5-4-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: May 14, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 92)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 27060-27063]
[DOCID:fr14my07-5]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0692; FRL-8314-1]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
West Virginia; Redesignation of the Weirton, WV Portion of the
Steubenville-Weirton, OH-WV 8-Hour Ozone Nonattainment Area to
Attainment and Approval of the Area's Maintenance Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a redesignation request and a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of West
Virginia. The West Virginia Department of Environmental Protection
(WVDEP) is requesting that the Brooke and Hancock County, West Virginia
(Weirton) portion of the Steubenville-Weirton, OH-WV area (herein
referred to as the ``Area'') be redesignated as attainment for the 8-
hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). In
conjunction with its redesignation request, the State submitted a SIP
revision consisting of a maintenance plan for Weirton that provides for
continued attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS for the next 12 years,
until 2018. EPA is also approving the adequacy determination for the
motor vehicle emission budgets (MVEBs) that are identified in the
Weirton 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for purposes of transportation
conformity, and is approving those MVEBs. EPA is approving the
redesignation request and the maintenance plan revision to the West
Virginia SIP in accordance with the requirements of the CAA.

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is effective on June 13, 2007.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2006-0692. All documents in the docket are listed in
the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the electronic

docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e., confidential
business information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through http://www.regulations.gov or in hard

copy for public inspection during normal business hours at the Air
Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III,
1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State
submittal are available at the West Virginia Department of
Environmental Protection, Division of Air Quality, 601 57th Street,
SE., Charleston, WV 25304.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Amy Caprio,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by e-
mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On October 2, 2006 (71 FR 57905), EPA published a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the State of West Virginia. The NPR
proposed approval of West Virginia's redesignation request and a SIP
revision that establishes a maintenance plan for Weirton that sets
forth how Weirton will maintain attainment of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS
for the next 12 years. The formal SIP revision was submitted by the
WVDEP on August 3, 2006. Other specific requirements of West Virginia's
redesignation request SIP revision for the maintenance plan and the
rationales for EPA's proposed actions are explained in the NPR and will
not be restated here. On October 19, 2006, EPA received a comment, from
the West Virginia Division of Highways, in support of its October 2,
2006 NPR. Also, on October 28, 2006, EPA received adverse comments on
the said October 2, 2006 NPR. A summary of the comments submitted and
EPA's responses are provided in Section II of this document. However,
errata were found on page 57912 of the NPR. On page 57912 (Table 4), an
error occurred in EPA's calculation of the 2018 Ohio NOX
point sources. The correct 2018 Ohio NOX point source should
read 46.4 tons per day (tpd) instead of 41.0 tpd. This error adversely
affects the total NOX point sources and the 2018 Ohio total
NOX emissions. The correct total NOX point
sources should read 52.0 tpd instead of 46.6 tpd. Lastly, the 2018 Ohio
total NOX emissions should read 55.3 tpd instead of 49.9
tpd. It should be noted that these errata do not affect the attainment
of the 8-hour ozone standard or the demonstration of maintenance in the
Area.

II. Summary of Public Comments and EPA Responses

    Comment: The commenter stated that on behalf of the West Virginia
Division of Highways, they would like to go on record as supporting the
redesignation of Weirton from nonattainment to attainment.
    Response: EPA acknowledges the comment of support for our final
action.
    Comment: The commenter notes that although there are no electrical
generating units (EGUs) in the Weirton portion of the Area,
``significant'' NOX emissions reductions are expected from
2002--2018 at two EGU's located in Steubenville. The commenter requests
specific information on the controls at these plants and measures
making these emissions reductions enforceable.
    Response: The Redesignation of Jefferson County, Ohio to Attainment
of the 8-Hour Ozone Standard, 72 FR 711 (January 8, 2007) notes that
Ohio's EGU NOX emissions control rules stemming from EPA's
NOX SIP Call, October 27, 1998 (63 FR 57356), amendments to
the NOX SIP Call, May 14, 1999 (64 FR 26298) and March 2,
2000 (65 FR 11222), and the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) May 12,
2005 (70 FR 25162), to be implemented beyond 2006, will further lower
NOX emissions in upwind areas, resulting in decreased ozone
and ozone precursor transport into Jefferson County and the
Steubenville-Weirton Area. This will also support maintenance of the
ozone standard in this Area, which particularly benefits from the
NOX SIP Call and CAIR. These two regulations focus on
utility emissions in the Eastern United States and impose a permanent
cap on overall emissions from affected sources. This cap is likely to
minimize growth of this very important component of emissions in the
Area.
    The emission projections for Jefferson County and the Steubenville-
Weirton Area as a whole, coupled with the expected impacts of the
States' EGU NOX rules and CAIR, lead to the conclusion that
the Area should maintain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS throughout the required
10-year maintenance period and through 2018. The projected decreases in
local VOC and local and regional NOX emissions indicate that
peak ozone levels in the Area may actually further decline during the
maintenance period.
    Based on the comparison of the projected emissions and the
attainment year emissions, we conclude that the West Virginia
Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP) and the Ohio EPA have
successfully demonstrated that the 8-hour ozone standard should be
maintained throughout the Area.
    In addition, in this action EPA is approving the Maintenance Plan
for Weirton and in a separate action has proposed approval of the
Maintenance Plan for the Jefferson County

(Steubenville) portion of the Area. Collectively, the Ohio and West
Virginia Maintenance Plans demonstrate why those states believe that
the Area will continue to maintain the 8-hour ozone standard for at
least 10 years from the date of redesignation. Furthermore, the
Contingency Plans, which are components of the Maintenance Plans, set
forth the steps that the States will undertake to preserve attainment
of the 8-hour ozone standard if air quality indicators show that the
air quality of the Area has declined to the point when contingency
measures to reverse that deterioration of air quality should begin
being implemented. Therefore, continued maintenance of the 8-hour ozone
standard will be assured independent of whether or not enforceable
reductions are currently called for at the two Jefferson County EGUs.
In short, if projected reductions from the Jefferson County EGUs do not
occur, and if the measures from the NOX SIP call, CAIR and
other ozone control measures that are currently implemented or will be
implemented in the near future, fail to maintain the 8-hour ozone
standard in the Area, the States of West Virginia and Ohio nevertheless
will have, with the Contingency Plan provisions of their Maintenance
Plans, a SIP-approved process for assuring that air quality in
Steubenville-Weirton Area will continue to maintain the 8-hour ozone
standard.
    Comment: The commenter states that the Weirton redesignation is
based on 2002-2004 air quality data, and should instead be based on the
most recent three years of air quality data, 2004-2006.
    Response: EPA disagrees that the 2006 data was available as a basis
for redesignating Weirton to attainment, and also disagrees with the
comment that the redesignation cannot be based on the quality assured
2002-2004 air quality data. EPA may redesignate an area to attainment
of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS if three years of quality assured data
indicate that the area has attained the standard and the most recent
quality assured air quality data indicates that the area is still
attaining the standard at the time of the redesignation. EPA has
determined that Weirton has attained compliance with the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS subsequent to the calendar year 2004 ozone season (April-October)
based on three years (2002-2004) of quality assured data. It is also
worth noting that while our determination that the Area has attained
the standard is based on the 2002-2004 data, the 2005 calendar year
quality assured data and the newly available quality assured data from
2006, indicate that the Area continues to attain the standard. The 2005
and 2006 data supports our conclusion in the NPR on October 2, 2006 (71
FR 57905) that emissions reductions in the Area can be contributed to
permanent and enforceable measures throughout the Area and that air
quality monitoring data indicate that the Area continues to attain the
8-hour ozone NAAQS.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The fourth highest 8-hour ozone monitoring values at the
Hancock County, West Virginia (Weirton) monitor for 2006 were 0.085
ppm, 0.079 ppm, 0.079 ppm, and 0.077 ppm. The fourth highest 8-hour
ozone monitoring values at the Jefferson County, Ohio (Steubenville)
monitor for 2006 were 0.089, 0.083, 0.080 ppm, and 0.080 ppm. Thus
the design values at both Area monitors for monitoring years 2004-
2006 are still showing attainment of the 8-hour NAAQS with a value
of 0.075 ppm at the Weirton monitor and 0.078 ppm at the
Steubenville monitor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: The commenter asks why the monitoring site in Jefferson
County, Ohio was moved at the end of 2003, where the new site is in
relation to the old one, and an explanation as to the acceptability of
combining the data from the two sites.
    Response: The monitoring site in Jefferson County was relocated to
a site \1/3\ mile from the original site after 2003 because Ohio EPA
lost site access to the original site. The new site was approved by EPA
Region 5 and meets all siting criteria described in 40 CFR 58 Appendix
E. The original and final sites are sufficiently close together and
removed from sources of ozone precursors such that the two sites
represent the same air quality. Therefore, the data from the two sites
can be combined when calculating the three-year average ozone
concentration. See Redesignation of Jefferson County, Ohio to
Attainment of the 8-Hour Ozone Standard, 72 FR 711 (January 8, 2007).
    Comment: The commenter asserts that cold and wet summers, rather
than enforceable emissions reductions are a significant cause of
improvement of air quality in Weirton, although the commenter also
asserts based on the number of days exceeding 84 ppb 2005 that the air
quality is actually not improving.
    Response: In accordance with Appendix I to 40 CFR Part 50,
compliance with the 8-hour ozone NAAQS is met at an ambient air
monitoring site when the 3-year average of the annual fourth-highest
daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration is less than or equal
to 0.08 ppm; it is not based on the number of days which exceed the 8-
hour ozone standard. Additionally, EPA uses the three-year averaging
period to minimize year to year variations in the summer (i.e., ozone
season) weather. See Redesignation of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 66 FR
53094, 53100 (October 19, 2001). Therefore, the number of days
exceeding 84 ppb are not relevant to a determination of whether an area
(or portion thereof), has attained the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Information
relative to long term trends of West Virginia summer temperatures and
rainfall-based data was obtained from the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Climate Data Center
(please see attached). Based on EPA's review, this information shows
that the summers 2000 through 2006 experienced year to year variations
in average summer temperature and rainfall typical of the summer
seasons in the State of West Virginia. Thus the improvement in air
quality is not due to unusually cold and wet summers. Rather, the
improvement in air quality is due to the implementation of permanent
and enforceable measures as explained in the NPR. The permanent and
enforceable measures listed in the Weirton NPR include the National Low
Emissions Vehicle (NLEV), motor vehicle fleet turnover with new
vehicles meeting the Tier 2 standards, and the Clean Diesel Program.
These federal vehicle programs along with the NOX SIP Call
resulted in a 3.0 tons per year (tpy) decrease in VOC emissions and a
37.2 tpy decrease in NOX emissions throughout the
Steubenville-Weirton Area between 2002 and 2004. Therefore, EPA
believes that the improvement in 8-hour ozone air quality is a result
of identifiable, permanent and enforceable reductions in ozone
precursor emissions, not unusually cold and wet summers.
    Comment: The commenter requests 2006 monitoring data for the
Weirton Area.
    Response: Preliminary (not quality assured) data is publicly
available at the following Web sites: http://www.epa.gov/air/data/ and/or http://www.airnow.gov. See also, footnote 1.

    Additionally, the United States Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit recently vacated EPA's April 30, 2004 ``Final Rule
to Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Standard'' (the Phase 1
implementation rule). South Coast Air Quality Management District v.
EPA, 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir. 2007). EPA issued a supplemental proposed
rulemaking that set forth its views on the potential effect of the
Court's ruling on this and other proposed redesignation actions. 72 FR
13452 (March 22, 2007). EPA proposed to find that the Court's ruling
does not alter any requirements relevant to the

proposed redesignations that would prevent EPA from finalizing these
redesignations, for the reasons fully explained in the supplemental
notice. EPA provided a 15-day review and comment period on this
supplemental proposed rulemaking. The public comment period closed on
April 6, 2007. EPA received six comments, all supporting EPA's
supplemental proposed rulemaking, and supporting redesignation of the
affected areas. EPA recognizes the support provided in these comments
as well, but again, we do not believe any specific response to comments
is necessary with respect to these comments. In addition, several of
these comments included additional rationale for proceeding with these
proposed redesignations. EPA had not requested comment on any
additional rationale, does not believe any additional rationale is
necessary, and similarly does not believe any specific response to
these comments is necessary, and thus has not provided any.

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving the State of West Virginia's August 3, 2006
redesignation request and maintenance plan because the requirements for
approval have been satisfied. EPA has evaluated West Virginia's
redesignation request, submitted on August 3, 2006, and determined that
it meets the redesignation criteria set forth in section 107(d)(3)(E)
of the CAA. EPA believes that the redesignation request and monitoring
data demonstrate that Weirton has attained the 8-hour ozone standard.
The final approval of this redesignation request will change the
designation of the Weirton, West Virginia portion of the Area from
nonattainment to attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard. EPA is
approving the associated maintenance plan for Weirton, submitted on
August 3, 2006, as a revision to the West Virginia SIP. EPA is
approving the maintenance plan for Weirton because it meets the
requirements of section 175A.
    EPA is also approving the MVEBs submitted by West Virginia in
conjunction with its redesignation request. In this final rulemaking,
EPA is notifying the public that we have found that the MVEBs for
NOX and VOCs in the Weirton 8-hour ozone maintenance plan
are adequate and approved for conformity purposes. As a result of our
finding, Brooke and Hancock Counties must use the MVEBs from the
submitted 8-hour ozone maintenance plan for future conformity
determinations. The adequate and approved MVEBs are provided in the
following table:

  Adequate and Approved Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets (MVEBs) in Tons
                              per Day (TPD)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Budget year                       NOX          VOC
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2009..........................................          2.8          2.0
2018..........................................          1.2          1.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Weirton is subject to the CAA's requirements for basic ozone
nonattainment areas until and unless it is redesignated to attainment.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
final action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore
is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For
this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)). This
action approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Redesignation of an area to attainment under section 107(d)(3)(e) of
the Clean Air Act does not impose any new requirements on small
entities. Redesignation is an action that affects the status of a
geographical area and does not impose any new regulatory requirements
on sources. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this final
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
601 et seq.). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements
under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty
beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as
described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
This final rule also 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, as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor
will it have substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), because it affects the status of a geographical area, does
not impose any new requirements on sources, or allow the state to avoid
adopting or implementing other requirements, and does not alter the
relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities
established in the Clean Air Act. This final rule also is not subject
to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it
approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard. In reviewing SIP
submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they
meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence
of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary
consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP
submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with
applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission; to use VCS in
place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of
the Clean Air Act. Redesignation is an action that affects the status
of a geographical area and does not impose any new requirements on
sources. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do
not apply. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR
4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this final rule, EPA has taken the
necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize
potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected
conduct. EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March
15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in
accordance with the ``Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for
the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings'' issued
under the executive order.

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in

the Federal Register. This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 13, 2007. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action.
    This action, to approve the redesignation request, maintenance plan
and adequacy determination for MVEBs for Weirton, may not be challenged
later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section
307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Ozone, Nitrogen dioxide, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

40 CFR Part 81

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks,
Wilderness areas.

    Dated: May 4, 2007.
James W. Newsom,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

0
40 CFR parts 52 and 81 are amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart XX--West Virginia

0
2. In Sec.  52.2520, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding an
entry for the 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan, Steubenville-Weirton, OH-
WV Area at the end of the table to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2520  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Applicable geographic        State
 Name of non-regulatory SIP revision             area            submittal date           EPA approval date                 Additional explanation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan for the  Brooke and Hancock              08/03/06  05/14/07 [Insert page number where   ..................................
 Steubenville-Weirton, OH-WV Area.      Counties.                                 the document begins].
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PART 81--[AMENDED]

0
3. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

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

0
4. In Sec.  81.349 the table entitled ``West Virginia--Ozone (8-Hour
Standard)'' is amended by revising the entry for the Steubenville-
Weirton, OH-WV Area to read as follows:

Sec.  81.349  West Virginia

* * * * *

                                                         West Virginia--Ozone (8-Hour Standard)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Designation \a\                                        Category/Classification
          Designated area          ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Date\1\                   Type                            Date \1\                            Type
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Steubenville-Weirton, OH-WV Area
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brooke County.....................        05/14/07  Attainment......................
Hancock County....................        05/14/07  Attainment......................

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Includes Indian country located in each county or area except otherwise noted.
\1\ This date is June 15, 2004, unless otherwise noted.

* * * * *
[FR Doc. E7-9208 Filed 5-11-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P