[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 137 (Wednesday, July 19, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46123-46125]
[FR Doc No: 2023-15288]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 62

[EPA-R05-OAR-2023-0283; FRL-11127-01-R5]

Air Plan Approval; Indiana; Municipal Solid Waste Landfill State
Plan Approval for Designated Facilities and Pollutants

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve Indiana's state plan to control air pollutants from Municipal
Solid Waste (MSW) Landfills. The Indiana Department of Environmental
Management (IDEM) submitted the state plan on March 20, 2023. The
Indiana MSW landfill state plan was submitted to fulfill the state's
obligations under section 111(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) to
implement and enforce the requirements under the MSW Landfills Emission
Guidelines. The EPA is proposing to approve the state plan.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 18, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2023-0283 at https://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
[email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please
visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Margaret Sieffert, Clean Air
Strategies Section, Air Toxics Branch (AT-18J), Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected]. The EPA
Region 5 office is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding Federal holidays and facility closures due to COVID-
19.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

I. Background

    Section 111 of the CAA, ``Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources,'' directs the EPA to establish emission standards
for stationary sources of air pollution that could potentially endanger
public health or welfare. These standards are referred to as New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS). Section 111(b) directs EPA to publish and
periodically revise a list of categories of stationary sources which
cause or significantly contribute to air pollution, and to establish
NSPS within these categories. Section 111(b)(1)(B) applies to new
sources. Section 111(d) addresses the process by which the EPA and
states regulate standards of performance for existing sources belonging
to those categories established in section 111(b). When NSPS are

promulgated for new sources, section 111(d) and EPA regulations require
that the EPA publish an Emission Guideline (EG) to regulate the same
pollutants from existing facilities. While NSPS are directly applicable
to new sources, EGs for existing sources (designated facilities) are
intended for states to use to develop a state plan to submit to the
EPA.
    State plan submittal and revisions under CAA section 111(d) must be
consistent with the applicable EG and the requirements of 40 CFR part
60, subpart B, and part 62, subpart A. The regulations at 40 CFR part
60, subpart B, contain general provisions applicable to the adoption
and submittal of state plans under CAA section 111(d). Additionally, 40
CFR part 62, subpart A, provides the procedural framework by which the
EPA will approve or disapprove such plans submitted by a state. Once
approved by the EPA, the state plan becomes federally enforceable. If a
State does not submit an approvable state plan to the EPA, the EPA is
responsible for developing, implementing, and enforcing a Federal plan.
    The MSW landfills NSPS for new landfills and EG for existing
landfills were first promulgated by the EPA on March 12, 1996, in 40
CFR part 60, subparts WWW and Cc, respectively (61 FR 9905). On August
29, 2016, EPA finalized revisions to the MSW landfill NSPS and EG in 40
CFR part 60, subparts XXX and Cf, respectively (81 FR 59332; 81 FR
59313). The 2016 EG revision updates the control requirements and
monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping provisions for existing MSW
landfill sources.
    The current MSW landfill EG, found at 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf,
pertains to the regulation of landfill gas and its components,
including methane, from MSW landfills for which construction,
reconstruction, or modification was commenced on or before July 17,
2014. Pursuant to section 111(d) of the CAA and 40 CFR part 60, subpart
B, states are required to revise their state plans to comply with the
amended regulations. On May 21, 2021, EPA finalized the MSW landfill
federal plan in 40 CFR part 62, subpart OOO (86 FR 27756). EPA issued
technical amendments on February 3, 2022 for both the NSPS in 40 CFR
part 60 subpart XXX and the federal plan in 40 CFR part 62, subpart OOO
(87 FR 8202). The MSW landfill federal plan at 40 CFR part 62, subpart
OOO, applies to states that do not have an EPA-approved state plan
based on 40 CFR part 60 subpart Cf. Therefore, the MSW landfill federal
plan is currently in effect in Indiana.
    IDEM submitted a MSW landfill state plan on September 30, 1999. EPA
approved the state plan and it became effective on May 30, 2000 (65 FR
1632). In order to fulfill obligations under CAA section 111(d) to
submit a revised state plan to reflect amendments to the MSW landfill
EG, IDEM submitted a revised MSW landfill state plan on March 20, 2023.
IDEM incorporated by reference the federal plan located at 40 CFR part
62, subpart OOO to use as the underlying rule which implements and
enforces the applicable provisions under the MSW landfill EG at 40 CFR
part 60, subpart Cf. For the reasons discussed below, EPA believes that
the Indiana MSW landfill state plan meets the relevant requirements of
the CAA section 111(d) implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 60,
subpart B and 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf.

II. What does the State plan contain and what is EPA's analysis?

    EPA has evaluated the Indiana MSW landfill state plan to determine
whether the state plan meets applicable requirements from the MSW
landfills EG at 40 CFR part 60, subpart Cf, and the CAA section 111(d)
implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 60, subpart B. EPA's detailed
rationale and discussion on the Indiana MSW landfill state plan can be
found in the EPA Technical Support Document (TSD), located in the
docket for this rulemaking. The applicable provisions and EPA's
analysis are briefly summarized below.
    A. A demonstration of the state's legal authority to carry out the
MSW landfill state plan as required by 40 CFR 60.26. IDEM has provided
a detailed list which demonstrated that it has such legal authority.
    B. Identification of enforceable state mechanisms that the State
selected for implementing the EGs as required by 40 CFR 60.24. IDEM has
incorporated by reference the federal plan at 40 CFR part 62, subpart
OOO as its state rule into the Indiana Administrative Code (IAC) via
Article 326 IAC 8-8.2. EPA retains the authorities listed in 40 CFR
62.16710(b) that are not delegable to state, local or Tribal agencies.
If a design plan includes alternative requests as listed as non-
delegable under 40 CFR 62.16710(b), IDEM must forward to EPA for review
and approval prior to approving.
    C. An inventory of affected MSW landfills, including those that
have ceased operation but have not been dismantled as required by 40
CFR 60.25(a). IDEM has provided this.
    D. An inventory of the emissions from affected MSW landfills as
required by 40 CFR 60.25(a). IDEM has provided this.
    E. Emission limitations for affected MSW Landfills that are at
least as protective as the EGs as required by 60.24(c). IDEM references
the emission limitations contained in 40 CFR 62 subpart OOO, which are
consistent with the provisions of 40 CFR 60 Subpart Cf.
    F. Compliance schedules for each affected MSW landfills as required
by 60.24(e)(1). IDEM references the compliance schedules contained in
40 CFR 62 subpart OOO, which are consistent with the provisions of 40
CFR 60 subpart Cf.
    G. Performance testing, recordkeeping and reporting requirements as
required by 60.25. IDEM references the performance testing,
recordkeeping and reporting requirements contained in 40 CFR 62 subpart
OOO, which are consistent with the provisions of 40 CFR 60 subpart Cf.
    H. Certification that the hearing on the state plan was held, a
list of witnesses and their organizational affiliations, if any,
appearing at the hearing, and a brief written summary of each
presentation or written submission as required by 40 CFR 60.23. IDEM
received approval on November 15, 2022, for an alternative public
hearing request and adhered to this alternative.
    I. A provision for state progress reports to EPA as required by 40
CFR 61.25(e) and (f). IDEM commits to submitting annual progress
reports to EPA. Each progress report will include: enforcement actions,
achievement of increments of progress, identification of sources that
have ceased operation, emission inventory updates, and copies of
technical reports on all emission testing, including concurrent process
data.

III. Does the State plan meet the EPA requirements?

    The Indiana MSW landfill state plan submittal package includes all
materials necessary to be deemed administratively and technically
complete according to the criteria of 40 CFR part 60, subpart B and 40
CFR part 60, subpart Cf. EPA evaluated the Indiana MSW Landfill state
plan and related information submitted by IDEM for consistency with the
CAA, EPA regulations and policy. The Indiana MSW landfill state plan
has been evaluated in detail, as described more fully in the TSD. For
the reasons discussed above and in the TSD, EPA has determined that the
state plan meets all applicable requirements and, therefore, is
approving it.

IV. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing to approve the state plan which IDEM submitted on
March 20, 2023, for the control of emissions from existing MSW landfill
sources in the State and to amend 40 CFR part 62, subpart P, to codify
EPA's approval. EPA is proposing to find that the Indiana MSW landfill
state plan is at least as protective as the federal requirements
provided under the MSW landfill EG, codified at 40 CFR part 60, subpart
Cf. Once approved by EPA, the Indiana MSW landfill state plan will
become federally enforceable.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a CAA
section 111(d) submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA
and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7411(d); 42 U.S.C. 7429;
40 CFR part 60, subparts B and Cf; and 40 CFR part 62, subparts A and
OOO. Thus, in reviewing CAA section 111(d) state plan submissions,
EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the
criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law
as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this
action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 14094 (88 FR 21879, April 11, 2023);
     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 subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885,
April 23, 1997) because it approves a state program;
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
     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.
    In addition, the CAA section 111(d) submission is not approved to
apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or
an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In
those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal
implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175
(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
February 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects'' of their actions on minority populations and low-income
populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law.
EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as ``the fair treatment and
meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income with respect to the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies.'' EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean that
``no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of
environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the
negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and
commercial operations or programs and policies.''
    IDEM did not evaluate environmental justice considerations as part
of its 111(d) state plan submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing
regulations neither prohibit nor require such an evaluation. EPA did
not perform an EJ analysis and did not consider EJ in this action.
Consideration of EJ is not required as part of this action, and there
is no information in the record inconsistent with the stated goal of
E.O. 12898 of achieving environmental justice for people of color, low-
income populations, and Indigenous peoples.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waste treatment
and disposal.

    Dated: July 13, 2023.
Debra Shore,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2023-15288 Filed 7-18-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 236 (Thursday, December 9, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76778-76780]
[FR Doc No: 2010-31013]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Environmental Impact Statement for the Milwaukee, WI (Milwaukee
Intermodal Station) to Minneapolis, MN (Minneapolis Transportation
Interchange) Rail Corridor

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration, Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement.

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

SUMMARY: FRA is issuing this notice to advise the public that a Tier I
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be prepared for the
Milwaukee, WI to Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN (Milwaukee-Twin Cities) High-
Speed Rail Corridor Program. The project includes passenger stations,
maintenance facilities, and the construction of a high-speed rail line
between Milwaukee and the Twin Cities. This corridor is part of a
larger network of high-speed passenger rail corridors in the Midwest,
with a hub in Chicago, IL. The effort to develop these high-speed rail
corridors and expand the passenger rail system in the Midwest is known
as the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative (MWRRI). FRA is issuing this
notice to solicit public and agency input into the development of the
scope of the EIS and to advise the public that outreach activities
conducted by FRA will be considered in the preparation of the EIS.
Alternatives under consideration include taking no action (No Build),
as well as several build alternatives along a variety of corridors
between Milwaukee and the Twin Cities.

DATES: Locations, dates, and start and end times for public meetings
involving the EIS are listed in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
of this notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Daniel Krom, Director, Passenger
Rail Office, Minnesota Department of Transportation, 395 John Ireland
Boulevard, MS 480, St. Paul, MN 55155, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; or Ms.
Colleen Vaughn, Office of Railroad Policy and Development, Federal
Railroad Administration (FRA), 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., MS-20/W38-
303, Washington, DC 20590, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FRA, in cooperation with the Minnesota
Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT), and the Wisconsin Department of
Transportation (WisDOT), will prepare a Tier 1 EIS for the Milwaukee-
Twin Cities High-Speed Rail Corridor Program from the Milwaukee
Intermodal Station in Milwaukee, WI to the Minneapolis Transportation
Interchange in Minneapolis, MN. The objective of the tiered EIS is to
evaluate potential intercity passenger rail route alternatives at the
corridor level and will result in the creation of a Service Development
Plan for the corridor.
    Objectives: The objectives of this MWRRI project are to meet
current and future regional travel needs through significant
improvements to the level and quality of passenger rail service and
provide a stimulus for joint development in communities served by the
system by:
     Using existing rail rights-of-way to connect rural, small
urban, and major metropolitan areas;
     Improving safety, reliability and on-time performance;
     Providing a transportation choice for smaller communities
which do not have or are under-served by commercial air service;
     Providing improved travel times that are competitive with
the automobile mode; and
     Using modern train equipment operating at speeds up to 110
mph.
    Environmental Review Process: The EIS will be developed in
accordance with Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40
CFR part 1500 et seq.) implementing the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA), FRA's Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (64
FR 28545; May 26, 1999). FRA, with Mn/DOT and WisDOT, will use a tiered
process, as provided for in 40 CFR 1508.28 and in accordance with FRA
guidance, in the completion of the environmental review of the Project.
The Tier 1 EIS will address broad corridor-level issues and proposals.
Subsequent phases or tiers will analyze, at a greater level of detail,
narrower site-specific proposals based on the decisions made in Tier 1.
    Tier 1: The Tier 1 EIS will result in a NEPA document with the
appropriate

level of detail for corridor-level decisions and will address broad
overall issues of concern, including but not limited to:
     Confirming the purpose and need for the proposed action.
     Confirming the study area appropriate to assess reasonable
and feasible alternatives.
     Identifying a comprehensive set of goals and objectives
for the corridor in conjunction with the project sponsors and other
stakeholders. These goals and objectives will be crafted to allow
comprehensive evaluation of all aspects of the project necessary to
achieve the goals, including train operations, vehicles and
infrastructure.
     Identifying the reasonable and feasible alternatives to be
considered including a no action/no build alternative, consistent with
the current and planned use of the corridor and the existing services
within and adjacent to the study area.
     Developing criteria and screen alternatives to eliminate
those alternatives that do not meet the purpose and need of the
proposed action.
     Identifying the general alignment(s) of the reasonable and
feasible alternatives.
     Identifying right-of-way requirements for the reasonable
and feasible alternatives.
     Identifying the infrastructure and equipment investment
requirements for the reasonable and feasible alternatives.
     Identifying the operational changes required for the
reasonable and feasible alternatives.
     Describing the environmental impacts associated with
proposed changes in passenger rail train frequency, speed, and on-time
performance.
     Characterizing the environmental consequences of the
reasonable and feasible alternatives.
     Establishing the timing and sequencing of independent
actions to maintain a state of good repair and to implement the
proposed action.
     Identifying a preferred alternative for route alignment.
     Selecting component projects for Tier 2 NEPA
documentation.
    Alternatives: A No-Build Alternative will be studied as the
baseline for comparison with the proposed project. The No-Build
Alternative represents other transportation modes such as auto, air
travel, intercity bus, and existing rail and the physical
characteristics and capacities as they exist at the time of the Tier 1
EIS, with planned and funded improvements that will be in place at the
time the project becomes operational. Several alternatives will be
evaluated in the Tier 1 EIS including:
     Route A1: This alternative uses Canadian Pacific Railway
(CP) right-of-way from Milwaukee, WI to Watertown, WI; right-of-way
owned by the State of Wisconsin from Watertown to Junction A in
Madison; Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) right-of-way under lease
to Wisconsin & Southern Railroad (WSOR) from Junction A to Johnson
Street Yard in Madison, WI; CP right-of-way from Johnson Street Yard in
Madison through Portage, WI and La Crosse, WI to Red Wing, MN and to
Hastings, MN; CP or BNSF Railway Co. (BNSF) right-of-way from Hastings,
MN to St. Paul, MN; and CP and BNSF rights-of-way from St. Paul, MN to
Minneapolis, MN.
     Route A2: This alternative uses CP right-of-way from
Milwaukee, WI to Watertown, WI, through Portage, WI and La Crosse, WI
to Red Wing, MN and to Hastings, MN; CP or BNSF right-of-way from
Hastings, MN to St. Paul, MN; and CP and BNSF rights-of-way from St.
Paul, MN to Minneapolis, MN.
     Route B1: This alternative uses CP right-of-way from
Milwaukee, WI to Watertown, WI; right-of-way owned by the State of
Wisconsin from Watertown to Junction A in Madison, WI; UP right-of-way
under lease to WSOR from Junction A to Johnson Street Yard in Madison;
CP right-of-way from Johnson Street Yard in Madison through Portage, WI
to Winona, MN; Dakota, Minnesota, & Eastern Railroad Co. (DM&E) right-
of-way through Rochester, MN to Owatonna, MN; UP right-of-way to
Northfield, MN; CP right-of-way to St. Paul, MN; and CP and BNSF
rights-of-way from St. Paul to Minneapolis, MN.
     Route B2: This alternative uses CP right-of-way from
Milwaukee, WI to Watertown, WI, through Portage, WI to Winona, MN; DM&E
right-of-way through Rochester, MN to Owatonna, MN; UP right-of-way to
Northfield, MN; CP right-of way to St. Paul, MN; and CP and BNSF
rights-of-way from St. Paul to Minneapolis, MN.
     Route C1: This alternative uses CP right-of-way from
Milwaukee, WI to Watertown, WI; right-of-way owned by the State of
Wisconsin from Watertown to Junction A in Madison, WI; UP right-of-way
under lease to WSOR from Junction A to Johnson Street Yard in Madison;
CP right-of-way from Johnson Street Yard in Madison through Portage, WI
to Camp Douglas, WI; UP right-of-way through Eau Claire, WI to St.
Paul, MN; and CP and BNSF rights-of-way to Minneapolis, MN.
     Route C2: This alternative uses CP right-of-way from
Milwaukee, WI to Watertown, WI, through Portage, WI to Camp Douglas,
WI; UP right-of-way through Eau Claire, WI to St. Paul, MN; and CP and
BNSF rights-of-way to Minneapolis, MN.
    Scoping and Comments: FRA encourages broad participation in the EIS
process during scoping and subsequent review of the resulting
environmental documents. Comments and suggestions are invited from all
interested agencies and the public at large to ensure the full range of
issues related to the proposed action and all reasonable alternatives
are addressed and all significant issues are identified. In particular,
FRA is interested in determining whether there are areas of
environmental concern where there might be the potential for
significant impacts identifiable at a corridor level. Letters
describing the proposed project and soliciting comments will be sent to
appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies, and appropriate
railroads. Public agencies with jurisdiction are requested to advise
the FRA, Mn/DOT, and WisDOT of the applicable permit and environmental
review requirements of each agency, and the scope and content of the
environmental information that is germane to the agency's statutory
responsibilities in connection with the proposed improvements.
    Agency scoping meetings have been and will be held for this project
at the dates and times below. These meetings have been and will be
advertised locally and held at the following cities and dates:
    1. St. Paul, MN on November 29, 2010 from 5 p.m.-7 p.m.
    2. La Crosse, WI/La Crescent, MN on November 30, 2010 from 5 p.m.-7
p.m.
    3. Eau Claire, WI on December 1, 2010 from 5 p.m.-7 p.m.
    4. Fond du Lac, WI on December 2, 2010 from 5 p.m.-7 p.m.
    5. Rochester, MN on December 6, 2010 from 5 p.m.-7 p.m.
    6. Madison, WI on December 7, 2010 from 5 p.m.-7 p.m.
    7. Milwaukee, WI at a date and location to be determined.
    Scoping meetings will also take place after the publication of this
Notice in the Federal Register. Two additional rounds of public
meetings will be held in the same seven locations stated above during
February 2011 and February 2012.
    Letters describing the proposed action alternatives and soliciting
comments will be sent to appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies
in Minnesota and Wisconsin. An iterative public involvement/information
program will support the process. The program will involve newsletters,
a project hotline,

informational workshops, small group meetings, and other methods to
solicit and incorporate public input throughout the planning process.
To ensure that the full range of issues relating to the proposed action
is addressed, comments and suggestions are invited from all interested
parties. Comments and questions concerning the extension of the
proposed action should be directed to Mn/DOT or to the FRA at the
addresses provided above. Additional information can be obtained by
visiting the project Web site at http://www.dot.state.mn.us/passengerrail/mwrri/phase7.html or sending an email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 6, 2010.
Mark E. Yachmetz,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Policy and Development.
[FR Doc. 2010-31013 Filed 12-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register: February 24, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 36)]
[Notices]
[Page 8390]
[DOCID:fr24fe10-120]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

[Docket No. USCG-2010-0075]

St. Croix River Aids to Navigation

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard announces a public meeting to receive comments
on the aids to navigation in the St. Croix River.

DATES: A public meeting will be held on Tuesday, March 2, 2010, from
6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. to provide an opportunity for oral comments.
Written comments and related material may also be submitted to Coast
Guard personnel specified at that meeting. All written comments and
related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before the
meeting date.

ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be held in the auditorium at
Stillwater Junior High School, 523 Marsh Street West, Stillwater, MN
55082-5700. Parking is provided in the main parking lot on the north
side of the building.
    You may submit written comments identified by docket number USCG-
2010-0075 before the meeting using any one of the following methods:
    (1<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (3) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER> (ATTN: Federal Projects).
    (4) Mail: Commander (dpw), Eighth Coast Guard District, ATTN:
Federal Projects, 500 Poydras Street, Room 1230, New Orleans, LA 70130-
3310.
    (5) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these five methods.
Our online docket for this meeting is available on the Internet at
http://www.regulations.gov under docket number USCG-2010-0075.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions concerning the
meeting, please e-mail ENS Austin Glass, U.S. Coast Guard, Eighth
District, Waterways Management, at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or telephone
504-671-2113.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background and Purpose

    The purpose of this meeting is to review the current Aids to
Navigation system on the St. Croix River and discuss concerns and
improvements that could be made to create a more consistent and useful
waterway.
    You may view the online docket and comments submitted thus far by
going to http://www.regulations.gov. Once there, select the Advanced
Docket Search option on the right side of the screen, insert USCG-2010-
0075 in the ``Search'' box, and then click ``Search'' at the bottom of
the page. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in Room
W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. We
have an agreement with the Department of Transportation to use the
Docket Management Facility.
    We encourage you to participate in this meeting by submitting
comments either orally at the meeting or in writing. If you bring
written comments to the meeting, you may submit them to Coast Guard
personnel specified at the meeting to receive written comments.
    Comments must be submitted to the Coast Guard on or before the
meeting date. If you submit a comment online through e-mail to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>it will be
considered received by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit
the comment. If faxed, hand delivered, or mailed, comments will be
considered as having been received by the Coast Guard when it is
received at the Coast Guard District Eight facilities.
    These comments will be submitted to our online public docket. All
comments received will be posted without change to http://
www.regulations.gov and will include any personal information you have
provided.
    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments 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 a Privacy Act notice
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Information on Services for Individuals With Disabilities

    For information on facilities or services for individuals with
disabilities or to request special assistance at the public meeting,
contact ENS Austin Glass, U.S. Coast Guard, at the e-mail address
indicated under the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
notice.
    We will provide a written summary of the meeting and comments and
place that summary in the docket.

    Dated: February 3, 2010.
M.E. Landry,
Rear-Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2010-3657 Filed 2-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: April 9, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 68)]
[Notices]
[Page 18248-18249]
[DOCID:fr09ap10-137]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-61831; File No. SR-NYSEArca-2010-20]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Notice of Filing and Immediate
Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change by NYSE Arca, Inc. Amending
Commentary .05 to Rule 6.4 Series of Options for Trading

April 2, 2010.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the ``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that on March 31, 2010 NYSE Arca, Inc. (``NYSE Arca'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The Commission
is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the proposed rule
change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 6.4-Series of Options for
Trading by adopting new provisions governing strike price intervals.
The text of the proposed rule change is attached as Exhibit 5 to the
19b-4 form. A copy of this filing is available on the Exchange's Web
site at http://www.nyse.com, at the Exchange's principal office and at
the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The purpose of the proposed rule change is to (i) add a provision
to Rule 6.4 codifying the strike price intervals presently used by NYSE
Arca for listed options, and (ii) create a provision that will allow
for $5 strike price intervals of options on Exchange Traded Funds
Shares (``ETFs'') where the strike price is over $200.
    Options traded on NYSE Arca are listed at strike price intervals of
$2.50 or greater where the strike price is less than $25.00, $5.00 or
greater where the strike price is greater than $25.00, and $10.00 or
greater where the strike price is greater than $200.00. This listing
convention for strike price intervals is the same as is presently in
place at other U.S. option exchanges.\3\ The Exchange now proposes to
adopt new Rule 6.4(f) in order to codify these standards that are
presently in use at NYSE Arca.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See International Securities Exchange (``ISE'') Rule 504(d)
and NYSE Amex Rule 903 Commentary .05.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Commentary .05 to Rule 6.4-Series of Options Open for Trading
states that strike price intervals of options on Exchanged-Traded Fund
Shares will be $1 or greater where the strike price of the underlying
asset is $200 or less. Most underlying ETF options trade for less than
$200 per share; therefore most series are priced at $1 strike price
intervals. However, some higher priced ETFs do have listed options
series with strike prices over $200.\4\ NYSE Arca does not have a
provision that allows ETF options to list and trade at $5 strike

price intervals where the strike price is more than $200. This
limitation puts NYSE Arca at a competitive disadvantage to other
exchanges that are able to list ETF options series, with strike prices
over $200, at $5 price intervals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ As an example, ETF options trading under the symbols ILF,
FXI, MDY and EEM all have listed strike prices greater than $200.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange believes that the rule proposal to allow for the
listing of option series at $5 strike price intervals above $200, for
options on ETFs, will enable the Exchange to competitively list and
trade ETF options at appropriate strike price intervals. This proposed
rule is based on similar rules in effect at NYSE Amex LLC (``NYSE
Amex''), the Chicago Board Options Exchange (``CBOE'') and NASDAQ OMX
PHLX.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See NYSE Amex Rule 903 Commentary .05, CBOE Rule 5.5
Commentary .08 and NASDAQ OMX PHLX Rule 1012 Commentary .05.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ``Act''),\6\ in
general, and furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\7\
in particular, in that it is designed to prevent fraudulent and
manipulative acts and practices, to promote just and equitable
principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism
of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in
general, to protect investors and the public interest. The Exchange
believes the proposed rule change will allow the Exchange to
competitively list and trade ETF options at appropriate strike price
intervals which are also commensurate with the rules of other options
exchanges.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i)
Significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii)
become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such
shorter time as the Commission may designate, if consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest, it has become
effective pursuant to 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \8\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
thereunder.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day
operative delay so that the proposal may become operative immediately
upon filing, thereby giving the Exchange the ability to compete with
other option exchanges by listing and trading ETF options at the same
strike price intervals. The Commission finds that waiver of the
operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the
public interest because such waiver will encourage fair competition
among the exchanges. Therefore, the Commission designates the proposal
operative upon filing.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission may summarily abrogate such rule change if it
appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate
in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise
in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://
www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2010-20 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEArca-2010-20. This
file number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used.
To help the Commission process and review your comments more
efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all
comments on the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/
rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission,\11\ all subsequent
amendments, all written statements with respect to the proposed rule
change that are filed with the Commission, and all written
communications relating to the proposed rule change between the
Commission and any person, other than those that may be withheld from
the public in accordance with the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be
available for Web site viewing and printing in the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE., Washington, DC 20549, on official
business days between the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the
filing also will be available for inspection and copying at the
principal office of the Exchange. All comments received will be posted
without change; the Commission does not edit personal identifying
information from submissions. You should submit only information that
you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to
File Number SR-NYSEArca-2010-20 and should be submitted on or before
April 30, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.sec.gov.
    \12\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-8151 Filed 4-8-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 20 (Tuesday, January 30, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4234-4235]
[FR Doc No: 2018-01765]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID: FEMA-2018-0004; OMB No. 1660-0085]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Crisis Counseling Assistance and Training Program

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency, as part of its
continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites
the general public to take this opportunity to comment on a revision of
a currently approved information collection. In accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice seeks comments concerning
the Crisis Counseling Assistance and Training Program which provides
funding in response to a State's request for crisis counseling services
for a presidentially declared major disaster.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before April 2, 2018.

ADDRESSES: To avoid duplicate submissions to the docket, please use
only one of the following means to submit comments:
    (1) Online. Submit comments at www.regulations.gov under Docket ID
FEMA-2018-0004. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    (2) Mail. Submit written comments to Docket Manager, Office of
Chief Counsel, DHS/FEMA, 500 C Street SW, 8NE, Washington, DC 20472-
3100.
    All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket
ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material,
all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, and will include any
personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this
information makes it public. You may wish to read the Privacy Act
notice that is available via the link in the footer of
www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Voorhies, Lead, Community
Services Individual Assistance/Recovery,
[email protected]. You may contact the Records Management
Division for copies of the proposed collection of information at email
address: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 416 of the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, (Pub. L. 93-288, as
amended) (``Stafford Act''), authorizes the President to provide
professional counseling services, including financial assistance to
States, U.S. Territories, Federally recognized Indian Tribal
governments, local agencies or private mental health organizations for
professional counseling services to survivors of major disasters to
relieve mental health problems caused or aggravated by a major disaster
or its aftermath. FEMA codified Section 416 of the Stafford Act at
section 44 CFR 206.171 entitled Crisis Counseling Assistance and
Training. Under Section 416 of the Stafford Act and 44 CFR 206.171, the
President has designated the Department of Health and Human Services-
Center for Mental Health Services (HHS-CMHS) to coordinate with FEMA in
administering the Crisis Counseling Assistance and Training Program
(CCP). FEMA and HHS-CMHS signed an interagency agreement under which
HHS-CMHS provides program oversight, technical assistance and training
to States applying for CCP funding.
    FEMA is proposing to revise the collection by removing the option A
from question 8 on the CCP/ISP Crisis Counseling Assistance and
Training Program, Immediate Services Program Application/FEMA Form 003-
0-1 and option A from question 12 on the CCP/RSP Crisis Counseling
Assistance and Training Program, Regular Services Program Application/
FEMA Form 003-0-2. The removal of this option from both forms will
result in a minor hour burden reduction of 3.9 hours. FEMA welcomes
input from the public on the removal of option A from both forms, which
allows the State to use their own method to estimate the population to
be served, as well as the estimated burden hour reduction of 3.9 hours.

Collection of Information

    Title: Crisis Counseling Assistance and Training Program.

    Type of Information Collection: Revision of a currently approved
information collection.
    OMB Number: 1660-0085.
    FEMA Forms: FEMA Form 003-0-1, Crisis Counseling Assistance and
Training Program, Immediate Services Program Application; FEMA Form
003-0-2, Crisis Counseling Assistance and Training Program, Regular
Services Program Application; SF-424, Application for Federal
Assistance; SF-424A, Budget Information for Non-Construction Programs;
SF-425, Federal Financial Report; HHS Checklist/08-2007; HHS Project
Performance Site Location Form; ISP report narrative; Quarterly Report
Narratives; Final RSP Report Narrative,.
    Abstract: The CCP consists of two grant programs, the Immediate
Services Program (ISP) and the Regular Services Program (RSP). The ISP
and the RSP provide supplemental funding to States, U.S. Territories,
and Federally recognized Tribes following a Presidentially-declared
disaster. The grant programs provide funding for Training and Services,
including community outreach, public education, and counseling
techniques. States are required to submit an application that provides
information on Needs Assessment, Plan of Service, Program Management,
and an accompanying Budget.
    Affected Public: State, local or Tribal government.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 150.
    Estimated Number of Responses: 165.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 1511.1.
    Estimated Total Annual Respondent Cost: $116,010.
    Estimated Respondents' Capital and Start-Up Costs: $0.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost to the Federal Government: $120,735.

Comments

    Comments may be submitted as indicated in the ADDRESSES caption
above. Comments are solicited to (a) Evaluate whether the proposed data
collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency,
including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b)
evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (c) enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden
of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Dated: January 25, 2018.
William H. Holzerland,
Sr. Director for Information Management, Mission Support, Department of
Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2018-01765 Filed 1-29-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P