[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 67 (Friday, April 6, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 14745]
[FR Doc No: 2018-06997]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2017-0953; Airspace Docket No. 17-AEA-15]

Amendment of Class E Airspace; Massena, NY

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule, withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: This action withdraws the final rule published in the Federal
Register on March 15, 2018. In that action, the FAA amended Class E
surface airspace and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet
above the surface at Massena, NY. The FAA has determined that
withdrawal of the final rule is warranted since there has been a change
in the date for the decommissioning of the Massena collocated VHF
omnidirectional range tactical air navigation (VORTAC).

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, April 6, 2018.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    The FAA published a final rule in the Federal Register for Docket
No. FAA-2017-0953 (83 FR 11407, March 15, 2018) amending Title 14 Code
of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 amending Class E Airspace at
Massena International-Richards Field Airport, Massena, NY. The FAA
found that the Massena collocated VORTAC navigation aid will not be
decommissioned at this time. As a result, the final rule is being
withdrawn.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Withdrawal

0
In consideration of the foregoing, the final rule for Docket No. FAA-
2017-0953 (83 FR 11407, March 15, 2018), FR Doc. 2018-05045, is hereby
withdrawn.

    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.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on March 29, 2018.
Geoff Lelliott,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air
Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2018-06997 Filed 4-5-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 126 (Friday, June 29, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30804-30806]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13986]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-83514; File No. SR-GEMX-2018-22)

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Nasdaq GEMX, LLC; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change To Relocate the
Exchange's Rules Pertaining to Co-Location and Direct Connectivity

June 25, 2018.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given that
on June 13, 2018, Nasdaq GEMX, LLC (``GEMX'' or ``Exchange'') filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (``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 relocate the Exchange's rules pertaining
to co-location and direct connectivity, which are presently at Section
IV, subsections D (co-location) and E-G (direct connectivity) of the
Exchange's Schedule of Fees, to the Exchange's new rulebook shell,
entitled ``General Rules,'' at new General 8 (``Connectivity''),
Sections 1 and 2, respectively.
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
website at http://nasdaqgemx.cchwallstreet.com/, at the principal
office of the Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to relocate its rules governing co-location
and direct connectivity services, which presently comprise Section IV,
subsections D (co-location) and E-G (direct connectivity) of the
Exchange's Schedule of Fees. The Exchange proposes to establish, within
its new rulebook shell,\3\ a new General 8 heading, entitled
``Connectivity,'' to renumber Section IV, subsection D as Section 1
thereunder, and to renumber Section IV, subsections E, F, and G as
Section 2(a), (b), and (c) thereunder.\4\ The Exchange also proposes to
update internal cross-references in the renumbered Rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Recently, the Exchange added a shell structure to its
Rulebook with the purpose of improving efficiency and readability
and to align its rules closer to those of its five sister exchanges:
The Nasdaq Stock Exchange, LLC; Nasdaq BX, Inc.; Nasdaq PHLX, LLC;
Nasdaq ISE, LLC; and Nasdaq MRX, LLC (together with GEMX, the
``Affiliated Exchanges''). See Securities Exchange Act Release No.
82171 (November 29, 2017), 82 FR 57516 (December 5, 2017) (SR-GEMX-
2017-54).
    \4\ The Exchange notes that as a consequence of this proposal,
it will list its fees, in part, in Section IV of the Rulebook and,
in part, in General 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange considers it appropriate to relocate these Rules to
better organize its Rulebook. The other Affiliated Exchanges intend to
propose similar reorganizations of their co-location and direct
connectivity rules so that these rules will be harmonized among all of
the Affiliated Exchanges.
    The relocation of the co-location and direct connectivity rules is
part of the Exchange's continued effort to promote efficiency and
conformity of its processes with those of its Affiliated Exchanges. The
Exchange believes that moving the co-location and direct connectivity
rules to their new location will facilitate the use of the Rulebook by
Members of the Exchange who are members of other Affiliated Exchanges.
Moreover, the proposed changes are of a non-substantive nature and will
not amend the relocated rules other than to update their numbers and
make conforming cross-reference changes.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section
6(b) of the Act,\5\ in general, and furthers the objectives of Section
6(b)(5) of the Act,\6\ in particular, in that it is designed 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,
by improving the way its Rulebook is organized, providing ease of
reference in locating co-location and direct connectivity rules, and
harmonizing the Exchange's Rules with those of the other Affiliated
Exchanges. As previously stated, the proposed Rule relocation is non-
substantive.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \6\ 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 intermarket or intra-market competition that is
not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The proposed changes do not impose a burden on competition because, as
previously stated, they (i) are of a non-substantive nature, (ii) are
intended to harmonize the Exchange's rules with those of its Affiliated
Exchanges, and (iii) are intended to organize the Rulebook in a way
that it will ease the Members' navigation and reading of the rules
across the Affiliated Exchanges.

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

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

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 from the date on which it was filed, or
such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \7\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) thereunder.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change, along
with a brief description and text of 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the
Act \9\ normally does not become operative for 30 days after the date
of its filing. However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \10\ permits the
Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent
with the protection of investors and the public interest. The Exchange
has requested that the Commission waive the 30-day operative delay so
that the proposed rule change may become operative upon filing. The
proposed rule change merely relocates the co-location and direct
connectivity rules in the Exchange's Schedule of Fees and updates rule
cross-references. Accordingly, the Commission believes that waiver of
the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest and hereby waives the operative delay
and designates the proposed rule change operative upon filing.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \10\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \11\ For purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative delay,
the Commission also 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 summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if

it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule change should be approved or
disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to [email protected]. Please include
File Number SR-GEMX-2018-22 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-GEMX-2018-22. This file
number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help
the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's internet website (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml).
Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all written
statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are filed with
the Commission, and all written communications relating to the proposed
rule change between the Commission and any person, other than those
that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the provisions
of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for website viewing and printing in
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549 on official business days between the hours of 10:00 a.m. and
3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for inspection
and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All comments
received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are
cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying
information from comment submissions. You should submit only
information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions
should refer to File Number SR-GEMX-2018-22, and should be submitted on
or before July 20, 2018.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Eduardo A. Aleman
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-13986 Filed 6-28-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


                        Analysis of Demographic Factors
                         For Populations Living Near
                   Steel Plants using Electric Arc Furnaces
                   and Argon-Oxygen Decarburization Vessels

                                 Prepared by:

                             SC&A Incorporated

                         1414 Raleigh Road, Suite 450
                            Chapel Hill, NC  27517

                           GSA BPA No. 68HERD21A0003
                         Task Order No. 68HERH22F0003

                                 Prepared for:

                          Air Toxics Assessment Group
                   Health and Environmental Impacts Division
                 Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
                     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                 Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711

                                 March 1, 2022
	Disclaimer

            Although the analysis described in this document has been funded wholly or in part by the United States Environmental Protection Agency under GSA contract 47QRAA20D002W / BPA 68HERD21A0003 to SC&A Incorporated, it has not been subject to the Agency's review and therefore does not necessarily reflect the views of the Agency, and no official endorsement should be inferred.
                                   Contents

1.	Introduction	1
2.	Census Data	2
3.	Calculation Methods	3
3.1	Race, Ethnicity and Age Categories	3
3.2	Level of Education	4
3.3	Poverty Level	4
3.4	Linguistic Isolation	5
3.5	Defaults	5
4.	Results	6
5.	Uncertainty Discussion	9
Appendix: Analyzed Facilities	10

 Introduction
	This document provides summary results and describes the approach used to evaluate the different socio-economic demographic groups within the population living near certain Steel Plants in the United States (U.S.). The demographic analysis is for 87 facilities identified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as producing carbon, alloy or specialty steels using electric arc furnaces, argon-oxygen decarburization vessels, and dust handling systems. The current analysis evaluates census blocks surrounding these facilities with census-based demographic data. This analysis presents the demographic composition of the population located within close proximity at 5 kilometers (km) and within 50 km of these Steel Plants. The following demographic groups were included in this proximity analysis:

 Total population;
 White;
 Minority;
 African American (or Black);
 Native Americans;
 Other races and multiracial;
 Hispanic or Latino;
 Children 17 years of age and under;
 Adults 18 to 64 years of age;
 Adults 65 years of age and over;
 Adults 25 years of age and older without a high school diploma;
 People living below the poverty level; and
 Linguistically isolated people.

	The current analysis used the Proximity Tool to (1) identify all census blocks with centroids located within specified radii of the latitude/longitude location of each facility, and then (2) link each block with census-based demographic data. It should be noted that, if the centroid of a census block is located within the specified radius, the entire population of that census block is counted as within the radius. In addition to facility-specific demographics, the Proximity Tool also computes the demographic composition of the populations within the specified radii for all facilities as a whole (e.g., source category-wide). The source category-wide computation takes into account neighboring facilities with overlapping study areas and ensures populations in common are counted only once in this demographic analysis. Finally, this analysis compares these source category-wide demographics at each specified radius (i.e., 5 km, 50 km) to the demographic composition of the nationwide population.

	The census data used in this analysis is described in Section 2. The algorithms used to compute the population of each demographic category surrounding the facility are presented in Section 3. The summary results of this analysis are presented in Section 4. The Appendix points to a supplemental workbook of spreadsheets containing the detailed facility-specific results.
 Census Data
	The total population within a specified radius around each facility is the sum of the population for every census block within that radius, based on each block's population provided by the 2010 Decennial Census. For the demographic analysis, statistics on total population, race, ethnicity, age, education level, poverty status and linguistic isolation are obtained from the Census' American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year averages for 2015-2019. These data are provided at the block group level. A census block group contains about 28 blocks on average, or about 1,400 people. Table 1 summarizes the census data used in the analysis, showing the source of each dataset and the level of geographic resolution.

             Table 1.  Summary of Census Data used for Different
                              Demographic Groups
Type of population category
Source of data
Level of geographic resolution
Total population (sum of block counts within radius)
2010 Census3 SF1
Census block
Total population (sum of block group counts, used for demographic percentages)
ACS4 Table B03002 (e1)
Census block group

Race/ethnicity categories (percentages):

 White (non-hispanic):
 Minority (non-white + hispanic)
 African American (non-hispanic):
 Native American (non-hispanic):
 Other & Mixed race (non-hispanic):
 Hispanic (all races):
ACS Table B03002, Hispanic or Latino Origin by Race (Tiger table X03):
 e3/e1
 (e1-e3)/e1
 e4/e1
 e5/e1
 (e6+e7+e8+e9)/e1
 e12/e1
Census block group
Age groups
ACS Table B01001, Sex by Age (Tiger table X01)
Census block group
Level of education  -  percentage of adults 25 years and older without a high school diploma
ACS Table B15002, Sex by Educational Attainment (Tiger table X15)
Census block group
Individuals living in households earning below the poverty level (percentage of individuals)
ACS Table C17002, Ratio of Income to Poverty Level (Tiger table X17): (e2+e3)/e1
Census block group
Individuals living in linguistically isolated households (percentage of households)
ACS Table C16002, Household Language by Household (Tiger table X16): (e4+e7+e10+e13)/e1
Census block group

      The statistics for total minorities, age groups, educational attainment, poverty, and linguistic isolation are consistent with the demographic statistics used in EPA's EJSCREEN tool for Environmental Justice analysis. We derive our demographic statistics from the ACS, which is the source of data for EJSCREEN's statistics. For the current analysis, however, we provide the impact on different racial and ethnic groups in more detail, as Table 1 illustrates.
 Calculation Methods
	The Proximity Tool uses the census block and census block group identification codes to link each block to the appropriate ACS block group demographic statistics. This allows us to estimate the number of people in different demographic categories for each census block in a specified radius around each facility. As noted in Section 2, demographic data is available at the census block group level. To estimate more detailed block level demographic percentages for the purposes of this analysis, the demographic characteristics of a given block group  -  that is, the percentage of people in different races/ethnicities, the percentage in different age groups, the percentage without a high school diploma, the percentage that are below the poverty level, and the percentage that are linguistically isolated  -  are presumed to also describe each census block located within that block group.

	For comparison, the nationwide demographic percentages are computed from the Census' ACS 5-year averages for 2015-2019 ("2019 ACS"). The denominator for these percentages uses the total nationwide population, which is likewise computed from the 2019 ACS and determined by summing the total population of all census block groups. We also provide the total population based on the 2010 Decennial Census for comparison, because the census block populations are based on 2010 Decennial Census data, as noted in Section 2.

	Sections 3.1 through 3.4 describe calculation methods for racial, ethnic, age, education status, poverty status, and linguistic isolation demographic categories. Section 3.5 describes the gap-filling approach used when block group statistics are not available for a given block, based on computing default averages for the missing demographic(s) at the tract or county level.
    Race, Ethnicity and Age Categories

	Table B03002 (Hispanic or Latino origin by race) of the ACS data provides race/ethnicity statistics for each census block group nationwide. Table B01001 provides age statistics for the population by ranges (in years) for each census block group nationwide. For each census block in this analysis, the race/ethnicity (White, African American, Native American, Multiracial/Other, and Hispanic or Latino) and age range (0-17, 18-64 and >=65 years) for that block is estimated based on the demographic information provided at the block group level, as follows:

		N(s,b/bg) =  N(t,b/bg) x P(s,bg) ∕ 100
where:

	N(s,b/bg) =	number of people in racial/ethnic or age subgroup "s", in block "b" of block group "bg"
	N(t,b/bg) =	total number of people in block "b" of block group "bg"
	P(s,bg) =	percentage of people in racial/ethnic or age subgroup "s", in a block group "bg"

The number of people in each racial/ethnic and age category is calculated using the above equation, summed over all blocks that fall within the specified radius of each facility.
    Level of Education

	Table B15002 (educational attainment) of the ACS provides education attainment statistics for each census block group nationwide. For each census block in this analysis, the number of people 25-years and older without a high school diploma is estimated based on the demographic information provided at the block group level, as follows:

		N(nhs,b/bg) =  N(t,b/bg) x P(nhs,bg) ∕ 100
where:

	N(nhs,b/bg) =	number of people 25-years and older without a high school diploma "nhs", in block "b" of block group "bg"
	N(t,b/bg) =	number of people 25-years and older in block "b" of block group "bg"
	P(nhs,bg) =	percentage of people 25-years and older without a high school diploma "nhs", in a block group "bg"

The number of people 25-years and older without a high school diploma is calculated using the above equation, summed over all blocks that fall within the specified radius of each facility.
3.3	Poverty Level

	Table C17002 (poverty) of the ACS estimates the numbers of individuals within a Census block group who live in households where the household income is below the poverty line, and below various multiples of the poverty line. For this analysis, we calculate the fraction of individuals living in households earning incomes below the poverty level. For each census block in this analysis, the block's household income level is estimated based on the demographic information provided at the block group level, as follows:

	N(hi,b/bg) =  N(t,b/bg) x P(hi,bg) ∕ 100

where "hi" indicates household income below the poverty level, and:

	N(hi,b/bg) = 	number of people living in households "hi" below the poverty level, in block "b" of block group "bg"
	N(t,b/bg) =	total number of people in block "b" of block group "bg"
	P(hi,bg) =	percentage of people living in households "hi" below the poverty level, among the population for which poverty status is known, in block group "bg"

The number of people living in households earning below the poverty level is calculated using the above equation, summed over all blocks that fall within the specified radius of each facility.
3.4	Linguistic Isolation

      Linguistic Isolation is defined by in the ACS as "a household in which all members age 14 years and over speak a non-English language and also speak English less than "very well" (have difficulty with English)." Table C16002 (Tiger table X16_language_spoken_at_home) of the ACS provides the number of households in linguistic isolation in each block group. For each census block in this analysis, the number of people living in linguistic isolation is estimated based on the demographic information provided at the block group level, as follows:

		N(li,b/bg) =  N(t,b/bg) x P(li,bg) ∕ 100
where:

	N(li,b/bg) =	number of people living in linguistic isolation "li", in block "b" of block group "bg"
	N(t,b/bg) =	total number of people in block "b" of block group "bg"
	P(li,bg) =	percentage of linguistically isolated households "li", in block group "bg"

The number of people living in linguistic isolation is calculated using the above equation, summed over all blocks that fall within the specified radius of each facility.
 	Defaults

      Block and block group designations used in the Census may be modified to accommodate population growth in some regions. As a result, certain blocks which are based on the last Decennial Census, may not map to the block group designations used in the latest 5-year ACS survey. In addition, some statistics may not be reported in the ACS for every block group. Race, ethnicity, and age statistics are generally reported for all block groups. However, poverty, linguistic isolation, and educational attainment statistics are not available for some block groups.

      In these cases, we compute default estimates for the missing demographic statistics based on the average statistics for the tract in which the block is located. If no tract-level data are available, demographic statistics are estimated based on the overall demography of the county in which the unmatched block is located. This gap-filling exercise is performed separately for each type of demographic data. That is, in the case where some categories of data are available (for instance, race, age and ethnicity) and others are not available (educational attainment, poverty, or linguistic isolation) we only compute defaults for the categories of data that are missing.

      The tract level defaults are computed using weighted averages based on all of the other block groups in the tract for which data are available. Defaults are calculated as follows for race, ethnicity, and age subgroups:

		P(s,T) =  { ∑ P(s,bg/T) x N(t,bg) } ∕ {∑ N(t,bg)}
where:

	P(s,T) =	percentage of people in race, ethnicity, or age subgroup "s", in tract "T"
	∑	refers to the summation over all block groups in tract "T" for which data are available
	P(s,bg/T) =	percentage of people in race, ethnicity, or age subgroup "s", in a block group "bg" of tract "T"
	N(t,bg) =	total number of people in block group "bg"

Defaults for educational attainment, poverty, and linguistic isolation are calculated in a similar fashion, except that the population weighting term N is replaced by the population over age 25, the population for which poverty status is known, and the number of households, respectively. County level defaults are also calculated in a similar way, except that data are summed over the county instead of the tract.

      Results
	The proximity results describe the demographics of the population surrounding these Steel Plants using electric arc furnaces and argon-oxygen decarburization vessels. Table 2 presents the demographic composition of the population located within a close proximity of 5 km and within 50 km of these 87 facilities as a whole (source category). For context, Table 2 also provides the nationwide percentages of these various demographic groups. The detailed facility-specific results underpinning these source category-wide results are noted in the Appendix.

	The proximity results presented in Table 2 indicate that the population percentages for certain demographic groups within 5 km of Steel Plants are greater than the corresponding nationwide percentages for those same demographics. The demographic percentage for populations residing within 5 km of facility operations is 5 percentage points greater than its corresponding nationwide percentage for the African American population (17% within 5 km of the facilities compared to 12% nationwide), 4 percentage points greater than its corresponding nationwide percentage for the population below the poverty level (17% within 5 km of the facilities compared to 13% nationwide), and 3 percentage points greater than its corresponding nationwide percentage for the population ages 18 to 64 (65% within 5 km of the facilities compared to 62% nationwide). The remaining demographic groups within 5 km of facility operations are less than the corresponding nationwide percentages.

      In addition, the proximity results presented in Table 2 indicate that the population percentage for one demographic group within 50 km of Steel Plants is greater than the corresponding nationwide percentages for that same demographic. The demographic percentage for populations residing within 50 km of facility operations is 3 percentage points greater than its corresponding nationwide percentage for the African American population (15% within 50 km of the facilities compared to 12% nationwide). The remaining demographic groups within 50 km of facility operations are less than the corresponding nationwide percentages.

Table 2.  Summary of Demographic Assessment for Steel Plants using Electric Arc Furnaces and Argon-Oxygen Decarburization Vessels: Proximity Statistics

                               Population Basis
                             Demographic Group[1]

                                     Total
                                  Minority[2]
                               African
American
                               Native
American
                             Other and
Multiracial
                             Hispanic
or Latino[3]
                                 Ages 0
to 17
                                Ages 18
to 64
                                Ages 65
and up
                         Over 25 Without a HS Diploma
                            Below the Poverty Level

                            Linguistic Isolation[4]
Nationwide Demographics    (2015-2019 ACS)
                                 328,016,242
                                      40%
                                      12%
                                     0.7%
                                      8%
                                      19%
                                      22%
                                      62%
                                      16%
                                      12%
                                      13%
                                      5%
Nationwide Block Counts
(2010 Decennial Census)[5]
                                  312,459,649

                                 Proximity[6]
                   Population Surrounding the 87 Facilities
                                 Steel Plants
                                     50 km
                                  71,577,375
                                      38%
                                      15%
                                     0.3%
                                      8%
                                      15%
                                      22%
                                      62%
                                      16%
                                      11%
                                      13%
                                      5%
                                 Steel Plants
                                     5 km
                                   2,781,377
                                      37%
                                      17%
                                     0.3%
                                      7%
                                      14%
                                      20%
                                      65%
                                      15%
                                      11%
                                      17%
                                      4%
Notes:
[1] The demographic percentages are based on the Census' 2015-2019 American Community Survey five-year averages, at the block group level, and include the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Demographic percentages based on different averages may differ. The total population of each facility and of the entire run group are based on block level data from the 2010 Decennial Census. Populations by demographic group for each facility and for the run group are determined by multiplying each 2010 Decennial block population within the indicated radius by the ACS demographic percentages describing the block group containing each block, and then summing over the appropriate area (facility-specific or run group-wide).
[2] Minority population is the total population minus the white population.
3 To avoid double counting, the "Hispanic or Latino" category is treated as a distinct demographic category for these analyses. A person is identified as one of five racial/ethnic categories above: White, African American, Native American, Other and Multiracial, or Hispanic/Latino. A person who identifies as Hispanic or Latino is counted as Hispanic/Latino for this analysis, regardless of what race this person may have also identified as in the Census.
[4] The linguistically isolated population is estimated at the block group level by taking the product of the block group population and the fraction of linguistically isolated households in the block group, assuming that the number of individuals per household is the same for linguistically isolated households as for the general population, and summed over all block groups.
[5] The nationwide 2010 Decennial Census population of 312,459,649 is the summation of all Census block populations within the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Block level population used by the Proximity Tool will be updated based on the 2020 Decennial Census, once processed and quality-assured for these analyses.
6 The population tally and demographic analysis of the total population surrounding all facilities as a whole takes into account neighboring facilities with overlapping study areas and ensures populations in common are counted only once.

 Uncertainty Discussion

	Our analysis of the distribution of population across various demographic groups is subject to the typical uncertainties associated with census data (e.g., errors in filling out and transcribing census forms), which are generally thought to be small, as well as the additional uncertainties associated with the extrapolation of census block group data down to the census block level.

	The methodology for our demographic analyses applies demographic data from the Census American Community Survey (ACS). While this is our best attempt to provide useful information now, our thinking is continuously advancing. The EPA has developed technical guidance for environmental justice analyses. We present these analyses, with their associated uncertainties, to EPA decision makers and the public as additional analyses to inform Risk and Technology Review decisions.

Appendix: Analyzed Facilities

A workbook of spreadsheets containing the detailed facility-specific results underpinning the source category-wide results are provided in the file entitled "Steel Electric Arc Furnace Facility-Specific Demographic Results 2022-03-01.xlsx". The size of the dataset covering these 87 facilities at both 5 km and 50 km makes the data more amenable to Excel(R) spreadsheets, than a Word(R) document.


[Federal Register: February 8, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 26)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 5946-5947]
[DOCID:fr08fe07-18]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 62

[EPA-R04-OAR-2006-0140-200605(b); FRL-8276-6]

Approval and Promulgation of State Plan for Designated Facilities
and Pollutants; Florida: Emissions Guidelines for Small Municipal Waste
Combustion Units

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve the Clean Air Act (CAA) section
111(d)/129 State Plan submitted by the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection (Florida DEP) for the State of Florida on
November 29, 2001, and subsequently updated on March 11, 2005. The
State Plan is for implementing and enforcing the Emissions Guidelines
applicable to existing Small Municipal Waste Combustion (SMWC) units.
The State Plan was submitted by Florida DEP to satisfy CAA
requirements. In the Rules Section of this Federal Register, EPA is
approving Florida's State Plan revision as a direct final rule without
prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial plan
and anticipates no adverse comments. A

detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final
rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to the direct
final rule, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives
adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all
public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule
based on this proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second
comment period on this rule. Any parties interested in commenting on
this document should do so at this time.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before March 12, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2006-0140, by one of the following methods:
    1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for

submitting comments.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: ``EPA-R04-OAR-2006-0140,'' Regulatory Development Section,
Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: Joydeb
Majumder, Air Toxics and Monitoring Branch, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional
Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official
hours of business is Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding
federal holiday's comments. Please see the direct final rule which is
located in the Rules section of this Federal Register for detailed
instructions on how to submit comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joydeb Majumder, Air Toxics and
Monitoring Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number
is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Mr. Majumder can also be reached via electronic mail
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information see the direct
final rule which is published in the Rules Section of this Federal
Register.

    Dated: January 19, 2007.
J.I. Palmer, Jr.,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. E7-2118 Filed 2-7-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


region facility species. orig stage year impinged. est entrained. est notes qc dummy dummy dummy dummy  999  999  999 dummy dummy lake marshall gizzard. shad age01 1974 6,487 . RM# 21609 pg 377 lake marshall threadfin. shad age01 1974 2,312,506 . RM# 21609 pg 377 lake marshall shad age01 1974 1,500,789 . RM# 21609 pg 377 lake marshall catfish age01 1974 514 . RM# 21609 pg 377 lake marshall yellow. perch age01 1974 4,098 . RM# 21609 pg 377 lake marshall unknown. fish age01 1974 45,273 . RM# 21609 pg 377 species apr june. 1974 july sept. 1974 oct dec. 1974 jan mar. 1975 sum source gizzard. shad 1108 49 69 40 1,266 RM# 21609 pg 377 threadfin. shad 1995 1879 181109 393623 578,606 RM# 21609 pg 377 shad 6780 70 377419 0 384,269 RM# 21609 pg 377 catfish 4 99 22 0 125 RM# 21609 pg 377 yellow. perch 722 19 42 10 793 RM# 21609 pg 377 unknown. fish 4414 22 17 5356 9,809 RM# 21609 pg 377 unknown. fish 17 6 3 2 28 RM# 21609 pg 377 sum 15040 2144 558681 399031 calculated days 92 92 90 91 365 calculated est. fish. per. day 864 96 24090 17728 RM# 21609 pg 377 extrap. fish. imp 79488 8832 2168100 1613248 extrap. gizzard. shad 5,856 202 268 162 6,487 extrap. threadfin. shad 10,544 7,740 702,838 1,591,384 2,312,506 extrap. shad 35,833 288 1,464,668  1,500,789 extrap. catfish 21 408 85  514 extrap. yellow. perch 3,816 78 163 40 4,098 extrap. unknown. fish 23,328 91 66 21,654 45,139 extrap. unknown. fish 90 25 12 8 134 sum 79,488 8,832 2,168,100 1,613,248 Losses data for the Marshall Steam Station ( North Carolina). Cooling water source: Lake Norman Intake 316( b) Phase III A. Gage, 12/ 16/ 2003 Notes: Need to check if using 2ndary source is ok.

QC Not yet


[Federal Register: September 11, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 175)]
[Notices]
[Page 53483-53485]
[DOCID:fr11se06-123]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-54401; File No. SR-ISE-2006-53]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
Inc.; Notice of Filing and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of a
Proposed Rule Change Relating To Doing Business With the Public

 September 1, 2006.
    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 August 31, 2006, the International Securities Exchange, Inc.
(the ``Exchange'' or the ``ISE'') 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 ISE. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the proposed rule change from interested persons and is

approving the proposal on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The ISE is proposing to adopt a rule with respect to members doing
business with the public on the ISE, in anticipation of the Exchange's
entry into the trading of non-option equity securities. Below is the
text of the proposed rule change. Proposed new language is in italics.
* * * * *

Rule 2106. Doing Business With the Public

    An Equity EAM that does business with the public must also be a
member of the NASD.
* * * * *

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    Currently, the ISE only trades options on equity securities and
indices. The purpose of this proposed rule change is to adopt a rule
that incorporates provisions related to non-option equity securities to
reflect ISE's intention to begin trading non-option equity securities.
Specifically, the ISE will require ISE Electronic Access Members
(``EAMs'') trading equity securities on the ISE (``Equity EAMs'') who
do business with the public to also be members of the NASD. As such
those ISE members would be required to comply with NASD rules that
govern the practices of members when doing business with the public.
Among other things, these members would be obligated:
     To make suitable recommendations to customers when
recommending the purchase, sale or exchange of any security; \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See NASD Rules 2310, IM-2310-3 and 2315.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     To be aware of possible application of SEC Rule 15g-1
through 15g-9 when a transaction involves a non-exchange listed equity
security trading for less than five dollars per share; \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See NASD Rule IM-2310-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     To deal fairly with customers and others; \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See NASD Rule IM-2310-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     To use reasonable diligence to ascertain the best inter-
dealer market for the subject security and buy or sell in such market
so that the resultant price to the customer is as favorable as possible
under prevailing market conditions; \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See NASD Rule 2320.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     To segregate and identify by customers both fully paid and
``excess margin'' securities; \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See NASD Rule IM-2330.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     To make proper use of a customer's securities or funds;
\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See NASD Rule 2330.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     To send a statement of account, no less than once every
calendar year, containing a description of any securities position,
money balances, or account activity to each customer whose account had
a security position, money balance, or account activity during the
period since the last such statement was sent to the customer; \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See NASD Rule 2340.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     To provide customers with a margin disclosure statement
prior to or at the time of opening a margin account; \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See NASD Rule 2341.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     To comply with the provisions of NASD Rule 2350 if the
member accepts deposits on the premises of a financial institution;
\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See NASD Rule 2350.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     To provide a risk disclosure statement set forth in NASD
Rule 2361 prior to opening a day-trading account for a customer; \12\
and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See NASD Rules 2360 and 2361.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     To not borrow from, or lend money to, a customer unless
the member complies with the provisions of NASD Rule 2370.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See NASD Rule 2370.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the
Act, and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national
securities exchange, and in particular, with the requirements of
Section 6(b)(5) \14\ of the Act. Section 6(b)(5) requires, among other
things, that the rules of an exchange be designed to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanisms of a free and open market and a national market system, and
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Specifically,
ISE believes the proposed rule change will promote just and equitable
principles of trade and protect investors and the public interest by
utilizing rules applicable to NASD members to provide safeguards for
public investors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 5 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

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

III. 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 No. SR-ISE-2006-53 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2006-53. 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, 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 inspection and copying in the Commission's Public
Reference Room. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the ISE. All comments
received will be posted without change; the Commission does not edit
personal identifying information from submissions. You should submit
only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2006-53 and should be
submitted on or before October 2, 2006.

IV. Commission's Findings and Order Granting Accelerated Approval of
Proposed Rule Change

    The Commission finds that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations
thereunder, applicable to a national securities exchange.\15\ In
particular, the Commission finds that the proposed rule change is
consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act \16\ in that it promotes
just and equitable principles of trade and protects investors and the
public interest by requiring Equity EAMs that do business with the
public to become NASD members. As NASD members those broker-dealers
would be subject to a set of rules designed to protect investors.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ In approving this proposal, the Commission has considered
its impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15
U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \17\ See, e.g., NASD Rules 2310, 2315, 2320. 2330, 2340, 2341,
2350, 2360, 2361, and 2370, as well as IM-2310 and IM-2330.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ISE has requested accelerated effectiveness of the proposed rule
change. ISE has also indicated that it believes most EAMs that do
business with the public are already NASD members and all Equity EAMs
that do business with the public are NASD members.\18\ After careful
consideration, the Commission finds good cause, pursuant to Section
19(b)(2) of the Act,\19\ for approving the proposed rule change prior
to the thirtieth day after the date of publication of notice in the
Federal Register. The Commission notes ISE must have rules concerning
doing business with the public in place prior to ISE commencing trading
in non-option equity securities. Moreover, because most EAMs are
already NASD members, the proposal would not impose additional
requirements on the majority of ISE members. Therefore, granting
accelerated approval would facilitate ISE's ability to trade equity
securities in a timely manner. Accordingly, the Commission finds that
there is good cause, consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\20\ to
approve the proposal on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Telephone call between Laura Clare, Assistant General
Counsel, ISE, and Haimera Workie, Special Counsel, Office of Chief
Counsel, Division of Market Regulation, SEC, on August 31, 2006.
    \19\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \20\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Conclusion

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\21\ that the proposed rule change (SR-ISE-2006-53) is hereby
approved on an accelerated basis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \22\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation,
pursuant to delegated authority.\22\
Nancy M. Morris,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E6-14947 Filed 9-8-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: August 10, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 153)]
[Notices]
[Page 48322-48323]
[DOCID:fr10au10-34]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2106-059]

McCloud-Pit Project; Notice of Availability of the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement for the McCloud-Pit Hydroelectric
Project and Intention To Hold Public Meetings

July 30, 2010.
    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC)
regulations contained in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) (18 CFR
part 380 [FERC Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897]), the Office of Energy
Projects has reviewed the application for license for the McCloud-Pit
Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 2106), located on the McCloud and Pit
Rivers in Shasta County, California, and has prepared a draft
environmental impact statement (EIS) for the project. The project
occupies 1,621.9 acres of federal lands managed by the U.S. Department
of Agriculture-Forest Service and 29.5 acres of federal lands managed
by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management.
    The draft EIS contains staff's analysis of the applicant's proposal
and the alternatives for relicensing the McCloud-Pit Project. The draft
EIS documents the views of governmental agencies, non-governmental
organizations, affected Indian tribes, the public, the license
applicant, and Commission staff.
    A copy of the draft EIS is available for review at the Commission
or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov,
using the ``e-Library'' link. Enter the docket number, excluding the
last three digits, to access the document. For assistance, contact FERC
Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll-free at (866) 208-
3676, or for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    You may also register online at  http://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.
    All comments must be filed by Tuesday, September 28, 2010, and
should reference Project No. 2106-059. Comments may be filed
electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the
instructions on the Commission's Web site (http://www.ferc.gov/docs-
filing/ferconline.asp) under the ``eFiling'' link. For a simpler method
of submitting text only comments, click on ``eComment.'' For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support. Although the Commission
strongly encourages electronic filing, documents may also be paper-
filed. To paper-file, mail an original and eight copies to: Kimberly D.
Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    Anyone may intervene in this proceeding based on this draft EIS (18
CFR 380.10). You must file your request to intervene as specified
above.\1\ You do not need intervenor status to have your comments
considered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Interventions may also be filed electronically via the
Internet in lieu of paper. See the previous discussion on filing
comments electronically.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to or in lieu of sending written comments, you are
invited to attend a public meeting that will be held to receive
comments on the draft EIS. The time and location of the meeting is as
follows:

Morning Meeting

    Date: September 9, 2010.
    Time: 9 a.m.-11 p.m.
    Place: Holiday Inn Hotel.
    Address: 1900 Hilltop Dr., Redding, CA.

Evening Meeting:

    Date: September 9, 2010,
    Time: 7 p.m.-9 p.m.
    Place: Holiday Inn Hotel.
    Address: 1900 Hilltop Dr., Redding, CA.
    At these meetings, resource agency personnel and other interested
persons will have the opportunity to provide oral and written comments
and recommendations regarding the draft EIS. The meetings will be
recorded by a court reporter, and all statements (verbal and written)
will become part of the Commission's public record for the project.
This meeting is posted on the Commission's calendar located at  http://
www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along with other related
information.

    For further information, please contact Emily Carter at (202) 502-
6512 or at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-19668 Filed 8-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 231 (Friday, December 2, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Page 74207]
[FR Doc No: 2022-26215]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notice of Request To Release Airport Land at the Toccoa-Stephens
County Airport

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the
request to release .73 acres of federally obligated airport property at
the Toccoa-Stephens County Airport.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 3, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this notice may be mailed or delivered in
triplicate to the FAA to the following address: Atlanta Airports
District Office Attn: Joseph Robinson, Planner, 1701 Columbia Ave.,
Suite 220, College Park, GA 30337.
    In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be
mailed or delivered to the Toccoa-Stephens County Airport Authority,
Attn: Ms. Amber McCall, P.O. Box 494, Toccoa, GA 30577.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph Robinson, Airport Planner,
Atlanta Airports District Office, 1701 Columbia Ave., Suite 220,
College Park, Georgia 30337-2747,<PHONE_NUMBER>. The application may
be reviewed in person at this same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA invites public comment on the
request to release a parcel of land totaling 0.73 acres at the Toccoa-
Stephens County Airport. The FAA determined this request to release
submitted by the Sponsor meets the procedural requirements of the FAA
and the release of the property does not and will not impact future
aviation needs at the airport. The FAA may approve the request, in
whole or in part, no sooner than thirty days after the publication of
this notice.

    Issued in Atlanta, Georgia, on November 28, 2022.
Joseph Parks Preston,
Assistant Manager, Atlanta Airports District Office, Southern Region.
[FR Doc. 2022-26215 Filed 12-1-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: October 13, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 197)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 62716-62718]
[DOCID:fr13oc10-14]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2010-1021; Directorate Identifier 2010-CE-053-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Pacific Aerospace Limited Model FU24-
954 and FU24A-954 Airplanes

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

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

    To prevent possible in-flight failure of the vertical
stabiliser, leading to loss of control of the aircraft * * *

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

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by November 29,
2010.

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

Examining the AD Docket

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

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2010-1021;
Directorate Identifier 2010-CE-053-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://
regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    On February 4, 2004, we issued AD 2004-03-29, Amendment 39-13473
(69 FR 6553; February 11, 2004) and on June 30, 2008, we issued AD
2008-14-12, Amendment 39-15607 (73 FR 40951; July 17, 2008). Those ADs
required actions intended to address an unsafe condition on the
products listed above.
    Since we issued AD 2008-14-12, Pacific Aerospace Limited has
developed a new vertical stabilizer design to eliminate the cracking in
the vertical stabilizer that occurred with the original design. The new
vertical stabilizer design incorporates a forward spar and is a
failsafe structure.
    The Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), which is the aviation authority
for New Zealand, has issued AD DCA/FU24/178, dated April 30, 2009
(referred to after this as ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe
condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

    To prevent possible in-flight failure of the vertical
stabiliser, leading to loss of control of the aircraft * * *
    Replace the vertical stabiliser with P/N 08-32005-2 by
accomplishing modification PAC/FU/0345 in accordance with the
instructions in Pacific Aerospace Limited Mandatory SB No. PACSB/FU/
094 issue1 dated 14 August 2008 * * *

The MCAI requires replacement of the vertical stabilizer with a new
design that incorporates a forward spar and is a failsafe structure.
You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD
docket.

Relevant Service Information

    Pacific Aerospace Limited has issued Mandatory Service Bulletin
PACSB/FU/094, Issue 1, dated August 14, 2008. The actions described in
this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition
identified in the MCAI.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

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

Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service
Information

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

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 3 products of U.S.
registry.

We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to
comply with the basic inspection requirements of this proposed AD. The
average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the inspection cost of the
proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $255, or $85 per product.
    We also estimate that it would take about 10.5 work-hours and
require parts costing $14,375 to comply with the replacement
requirements of this proposed AD.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the replacement cost of the
proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $45,802.50, or $15,267.50 per
product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

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

Regulatory Findings

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

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

The Proposed Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

    2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Amendment 39-13473 (69 FR
6553) and Amendment 39-15607 (73 FR 40951); and adding the following
new AD:

Pacific Aerospace Limited: Docket No. FAA-2010-1021; Directorate
Identifier 2010-CE-053-AD.

Comments Due Date

    (a) We must receive comments by November 29, 2010.

Affected ADs

    (b) This AD supersedes AD 2004-03-29, Amendment 39-13473 and AD
2008-14-12, Amendment 39-15607.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Pacific Aerospace Limited FU24-954 and
FU24A-954 airplanes, all serial numbers, certificated in any
category.

Subject

    (d) Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 55:
Stabilizers.

Reason

    (e) The mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI)
states:
    To prevent possible in-flight failure of the vertical
stabiliser, leading to loss of control of the aircraft * * *
    Replace the vertical stabiliser with P/N 08-32005-2 by
accomplishing modification PAC/FU/0345 in accordance with the
instructions in Pacific Aerospace Limited Mandatory SB No. PACSB/FU/
094 issue1 dated 14 August 2008 * * *
    The MCAI requires replacement of the vertical stabilizer with a
new design that incorporates a forward spar and is a failsafe
structure.

Actions and Compliance

    (f) For airplanes that have not been modified by installation of
vertical stabilizer part number (P/N) 08-32005-2, do the following
actions:
    (1) As of August 21, 2008 (the effective date retained from AD
2008-14-12), before the first flight of the day, visually inspect
the vertical stabilizer leading edge skin and fin for any cracking,
corrosion, scratches, dents, creases, and/or buckling and repair as
necessary. All non-transparent protective coatings and their
adhesive must be removed for this inspection.
    (2) Within 100 hours time-in-service (TIS) after August 21, 2008
(the effective date retained from AD 2008-14-12), and repetitively
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 100 hours TIS, perform a
detailed inspection of the vertical stabilizer leading edge skin,
leading edge, fin skin, and the fin forward attachment point for any
cracking, corrosion, scratches, dents, creases, and/or buckling to
include:
    (i) Inspection of the entire leading edge down to the forward
attach fitting and removal of dorsal fin extensions, if installed,
to inspect the obscured areas of the fin.
    (ii) Inspection of the fin skin for corrosion and cracks, paying
particular attention to the center rib rivet holes and the skin
joint at the fin base.
    (iii) Inspection of the fin forward attachment point for
corrosion, removal of the fin tip, and inspection of the top rib for
cracks at the skin stiffener cut outs.
    (3) If any damage is found during any inspection required in
paragraph (f)(1) or (f)(2) of this AD, before further flight, obtain
an FAA-approved repair scheme from the manufacturer and incorporate
that repair. Contact the manufacturer for the repair scheme by one
of the methods listed in the Related Information section of this AD
    (4) The following transparent polyurethane protective tapes have
been assessed as suitable for use to re-protect the leading edge and
may remain in situ for subsequent inspections, provided they are
sound and in a condition to permit visual inspection of the skin
beneath them:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Manufacturer                           Product
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) 3M.................................  8591, or 8671, 8672 and 8681HS
                                          (aeronautical grade).
(ii) Scapa.............................  Aeroshield P2604 (transparent).
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Note 1:  You may apply for an alternative method of compliance
(AMOC) for an alternative to the transparent polyurethane protective
tapes listed above.

    (5) Within 6 months after the effective date of this AD, replace
the vertical stabilizer with

P/N 08-32005-2 following Pacific Aerospace Limited Mandatory Service
Bulletin PACSB/FU/094, Issue 1, dated August 14, 2008. Installation
of vertical stabilizer P/N 08-32005-2 terminates the repetitive
inspection requirements of paragraphs (f)(1) and (f)(2) of this AD.
    (g) For airplanes that have been modified by installation of
vertical stabilizer P/N 08-32005-2, do the following actions:
    (1) Within 300 hours TIS after installation of vertical
stabilizer P/N 08-32005-2 or within 50 hours TIS after the effective
date of this AD, whichever occurs later, and repetitively thereafter
at intervals not to exceed 300 hours TIS, do a detailed visual
inspection of the vertical stabilizer following paragraph 2.B.i) of
Pacific Aerospace Limited Mandatory Service Bulletin PACSB/FU/094,
Issue 1, dated August 14, 2008.
    (2) Within 3,000 hours TIS after installation of vertical
stabilizer P/N 08-32005-2 or within 50 hours TIS after the effective
date of this AD, whichever occurs later, and repetitively thereafter
at intervals not to exceed 3,000 hours TIS, do an eddy current
inspection following paragraph 2.B.ii) of Pacific Aerospace Limited
Mandatory Service Bulletin PACSB/FU/094, Issue 1, dated August 14,
2008.

FAA AD Differences

    Note 2:  This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service
information as follows:
    (1) The inspections required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD must
be performed by a person authorized under 14 CFR part 43 to perform
inspections, as opposed to the MCAI, which allows the holder of a
pilot license to perform the inspections.
    (2) The 50-hour inspection required in the MCAI is not
applicable because the ``before the first flight of the day''
inspection captures the intent.
    (3) The MCAI does not require the inspections listed in Pacific
Aerospace Limited Mandatory Service Bulletin PACSB/FU/094, Issue 1,
dated August 14, 2008. To require compliance with these inspections
for U.S. owners and operators we are requiring the inspections
through this AD action.

Other FAA AD Provisions

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

Related Information

    (i) Refer to MCAI Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand AD
DCA/FU24/178, dated April 30, 2009; and Pacific Aerospace Limited
Mandatory Service Bulletin PACSB/FU/094, Issue 1, dated August 14,
2008, for related information. For service information contact
Pacific Aerospace Limited, Hamilton Airport, Private Bag HN3027,
Hamilton, New Zealand; telephone: + (64) 7-843-6144; fax + (64) 7-
843-6134; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on October 6, 2010.
Christina L. Marsh,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2010-25700 Filed 10-12-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 30 (Tuesday, February 16, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7710-7712]
[FR Doc No: 2016-02953]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2015-0398; FRL-9942-15-Region 10]

Approval of Regional Haze BART Alternative Measure: Washington

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to approve the Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART)
alternative measure for the BP Cherry Point Refinery located near
Ferndale, Washington. The BART alternative measure increases the oxides
of nitrogen (NOX) emission limit from the R-1 HC Reactor
Heater (R-1 Heater), a BART-eligible source currently subject to BART
emission limits on NOX. To offset the increase in
NOX emissions from this emission unit, the NOX
emission limits on the 1st Stage Hydrocracker Fractionator Reboiler (R-
1 Reboiler), also a BART-eligible source subject to BART emission
limits on NOX, will be reduced. The net effect of these
changes is a decrease of 10.4 tons per year (tpy) of allowable
NOX emissions from sources subject to BART at the BP Cherry
Point Refinery.

DATES: This final rule is effective March 17, 2016.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-EPA-R10-OAR-2015-0398. All documents in the docket
are listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed
in the index, some information may not be publicly available, i.e.,
Confidential Business Information or other information the disclosure
of which is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and is publicly
available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials
are available at http://www.regulations.gov or at EPA Region 10, Office
of Air, Waste and Toxics, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101.
The EPA requests that you contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection. The Regional
Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to
4:30, excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information please contact John
Chi at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background Information
II. Final Action
III. Incorporation by Reference
IV. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

I. Background Information

    On May 14, 2015, Washington submitted the BART alternative measure
and the EPA proposed to approve it on November 16, 2015 (80 FR 70718).
An explanation of the CAA requirements, a detailed analysis of the
submittal, and the EPA's reasons for approval were provided in the
notice of proposed rulemaking, and will not be restated here. The
public comment period for this proposed rule ended on December 16,
2015. The EPA received one comment in support of this action and no
adverse comments.

II. Final Action

    The EPA is approving the BART alternative measure for the BP Cherry
Point Refinery located near Ferndale, Washington by incorporating by
reference the conditions of Revision 2 identified below. The EPA is
removing the BP Cherry Point Refinery, BART Compliance Order No. 7836
currently in the Federally approved SIP at 40 CFR 52.2470(d) and
replacing it with provisions of the BP Cherry Point Refinery, BART
Compliance Order No. 7836 Revision 2. The EPA is also approving new
Condition 9 of the BART Compliance Order 7836 Revision 2 relating to
decommissioned units. The conditions of the BP BART Compliance Order
Revision 2 that are proposed for incorporation by reference are:
    Condition 1: 1.1, 1.1.1, 1.2, 1.2.1, 1.2.2;
    Condition 2: 2.1, 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3, 2.1.4, 2.1.5, 2.2, 2.2.1,
2.2.2, 2.3, 2.3.1, 2.3.2, 2.4, 2.4.1, 2.4.2, <IP_ADDRESS>, 2.5, 2.5.1,
<IP_ADDRESS>, <IP_ADDRESS>, 2.5.2, 2.5.3, 2.5.4, 2.6, 2.6.1, 2.6.2, 2.6.3, 2.7,
2.7.1, 2.7.2, 2.7.3, 2.7.4, 2.8, 2.8.1, 2.8.2,2.8.3, 2.8.4, 2.8.5,
2.8.6;
    Condition 3, 3.1, 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2, 3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3, 3.2.4;
    Condition 4, 4.1, 4.1.1, <IP_ADDRESS>, <IP_ADDRESS>, <IP_ADDRESS>, <IP_ADDRESS>;
    Condition 5, 5.1, 5.2;
    Condition 6, 6.1, 6.2, 6.3;
    Condition 7; and
    Condition 9.

III. Incorporation by Reference

    In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is revising
our

incorporation by reference located in 40 CFR 52.2470(d)--``EPA-Approved
State Source-Specific Requirements'' to reflect the approval of the
BART alternative measure for the BP Cherry Point Refinery and the
provision relating to decommissioned units. Due to the fact that the
conditions in the original BART Order were renumbered in Revision 1,
which was not submitted as a SIP revision, the EPA is removing the
original IBR entry for ``BP Cherry Point Refinery'' in its entirety and
incorporating in its place the specified conditions of Revision 2
included in the docket for this action. The end result is that all of
the conditions in the Original BART order remain in the SIP (but with
different numbers) except as discussed in the notice of the proposed
rulemaking with respect to the BART alternative measure and the
addition of Condition 9. The EPA has made, and will continue to make,
these documents generally available electronically through
www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office
(see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

IV. Statutory and Executive Orders Review

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the 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 13563 (76 FR 3821, January
21, 2011);
     does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly
or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action
based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62
FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.
272 note) because this action does not involve technical standards;
and
     does not provide the EPA with the discretionary
authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health
or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16,
1994).

    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land in
Washington except as specifically noted below and is also not approved
to apply in any other area where the 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 as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    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. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by April 18, 2016. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: January 27, 2016.
Dennis J. McLerran,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is
amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart WW--Washington

0
2. In Sec.  52.2470:
0
a. In paragraph (d), the table is amended by revising the entry for
``BP Cherry Point Refinery.''
0
b. In paragraph (e), table 2 is amended by adding an entry entitled
``Regional Haze State Implementation Plan--BP Cherry Point Refinery
BART Revision'' to the end of the table.
    The revisions read as follows:

Sec.  52.2470  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *

                          EPA-Approved State of Washington Source-Specific Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Order/Permit          State
         Name of source                number        effective date   EPA approval date        Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
BP Cherry Point Refinery.......  Administrative             5/13/15  2/16/16 [Insert     The following
                                  Order No. 7836,                     Federal Register    conditions: 1.1,
                                  Revision 2.                         citation].          1.1.1, 1.2, 1.2.1,
                                                                                1.2.2, 2.1, 2.1.1,
                                                                                2.1.2, 2.1.3, 2.1.4,
                                                                                2.1.5, 2.2, 2.2.1,
                                                                                2.2.2, 2.3, 2.3.1,
                                                                                2.3.2, 2.4, 2.4.1,
                                                                                2.4.2, <IP_ADDRESS>, 2.5,
                                                                                2.5.1, <IP_ADDRESS>,
                                                                                <IP_ADDRESS>, 2.5.2, 2.5.3,
                                                                                2.5.4, 2.6, 2.6.1,
                                                                                2.6.2, 2.6.3, 2.7,
                                                                                2.7.1, 2.7.2, 2.7.3,
                                                                                2.7.4, 2.8, 2.8.1,
                                                                                2.8.2,2.8.3, 2.8.4,
                                                                                2.8.5, 2.8.6, 3, 3.1,
                                                                                3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.2,
                                                                                3.2.1, 3.2.2, 3.2.3,
                                                                                3.2.4, 4, 4.1, 4.1.1,
                                                                                <IP_ADDRESS>, <IP_ADDRESS>,
                                                                                <IP_ADDRESS>, <IP_ADDRESS>, 5,
                                                                                5.1, 5.2, 6, 6.1, 6.2,
                                                                                6.3, 7, 9

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

    (e) * * *

                                Table 2--Attainment, Maintenance, and Other Plans
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Applicable geographic        State
     Name of SIP provision        or nonattainment area   submittal date  EPA approval date        Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Regional Haze State              Statewide..............         5/14/15  2/16/16 [Insert    ...................
 Implementation Plan--BP Cherry                                            Federal Register
 Point Refinery BART Revision.                                             citation].
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2016-02953 Filed 2-12-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P