[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 14 (Friday, January 22, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3723-3726]
[FR Doc No: 2016-01154]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0373; FRL-9941-17]

Propanoic acid, 2-methyl-, monoester With 2,2,4-trimethyl-1,3-
pentanediol; Exemption From the Requirement of a Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement
of a tolerance for residues of propanoic acid, 2-methyl-, monoester
with 2,2,4-trimethyl-1,3-pentanediol when used as an inert ingredient
(solvent, co-solvent) in pesticide formulations applied to growing
crops or raw agricultural commodities under the EPA's regulations. Dow
AgroSciences submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting establishment of an exemption from
the requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to
establish a maximum permissible level for residues of propanoic acid,
2-methyl-, monoester with 2,2,4-trimethyl-1,3-pentanediol.

DATES: This regulation is effective January 22, 2016. Objections and
requests for hearings must be received on or before March 22, 2016, and
must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR
part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION).

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0373, is available at http://www.regulations.gov or at the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory
Public Docket (OPP Docket) in the Environmental Protection Agency
Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334,
1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the OPP
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Please review the visitor instructions and
additional information about the docket available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan Lewis, Registration Division
(7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an
agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer.
The following list of North American Industrial Classification System
(NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them.
Potentially affected entities may include:
     Crop production (NAICS code 111).
     Animal production (NAICS code 112).
     Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
     Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).

B. How can I get electronic access to other related information?

    You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR
part 180 through the Government Printing Office's e-CFR site at http://
www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-

idx?&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40tab_02.tpl.

C. How can I file an objection or hearing request?

    Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a, any person may file an
objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a
hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a
hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided
in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify
docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0373 in the subject line on the first
page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must
be in writing, and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before
March 22, 2016. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and
hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
    In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the
Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of
the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for
inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential
pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without
prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing
request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0373, by one of
the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Do not submit
electronically any information you consider to be CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC
20460-0001.
     Hand Delivery: To make special arrangements for hand
delivery or delivery of boxed information, please follow the
instructions at http://www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html.
    Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along
with more information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Petition for Exemption

    In the Federal Register of August 26, 2015 (80 FR 51759) (FRL-9931-
74), EPA issued a document pursuant to FFDCA section 408, 21 U.S.C.
346a, announcing the filing of a pesticide petition (PP IN-10786) by
Dow AgroSciences, 9330 Zionville Rd., Indianapolis, IN 46268. The
petition requested that 40 CFR 180.910 be amended by establishing an
exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of propanoic
acid, 2-methyl-, monoester with 2,2,4-trimethyl-1,3-pentanediol (CAS
Reg. No. 25265-77-4) when used as an inert ingredient as a solvent or
co-solvent in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops or raw
agricultural commodities after harvest. That document referenced a
summary of the petition prepared by Dow AgroSciences, the petitioner,
which is available in the docket, http://www.regulations.gov. There
were no comments received in response to the notice of filing.

III. Inert Ingredient Definition

    Inert ingredients are all ingredients that are not active
ingredients as defined in 40 CFR 153.125 and include, but are not
limited to, the following types of ingredients (except when they have a
pesticidal efficacy of their own): Solvents such as alcohols and
hydrocarbons; surfactants such as polyoxyethylene polymers and fatty
acids; carriers such as clay and diatomaceous earth; thickeners such as
carrageenan and modified cellulose; wetting, spreading, and dispersing
agents; propellants in aerosol dispensers; microencapsulating agents;
and emulsifiers. The term ``inert'' is not intended to imply
nontoxicity; the ingredient may or may not be chemically active.
Generally, EPA has exempted inert ingredients from the requirement of a
tolerance based on the low toxicity of the individual inert
ingredients.

IV. Aggregate Risk Assessment and Determination of Safety

    Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an
exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a
pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that
the tolerance is ``safe.'' Section 408(b)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines
``safe'' to mean that ``there is a reasonable certainty that no harm
will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue,
including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for
which there is reliable information.'' This includes exposure through
drinking water and in residential settings, but does not include
occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to
give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the
pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to ``ensure
that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to
infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical
residue. . . .''
    EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only
in those cases where it can be clearly demonstrated that the risks from
aggregate exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably
foreseeable circumstances will pose no appreciable risks to human
health. In order to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to
pesticide inert ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the
inert in conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert
ingredient through food, drinking water, and through other exposures
that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA
is able to determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure
that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from
aggregate exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance may be established.
    Consistent with FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(A), and the factors
specified in FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), EPA has reviewed the available
scientific data and other relevant information in support of this
action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a
determination on aggregate exposure for propanoic acid, 2-methyl-,
monoester with 2,2,4-trimethyl-1,3-pentanediol including exposure
resulting from the exemption established by this action. EPA's
assessment of exposures and risks associated with propanoic acid, 2-
methyl-, monoester with 2,2,4-trimethyl-1,3-pentanediol follows.

A. Toxicological Profile

    EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered their
validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of
the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered
available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities
of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and
children. Specific information on the studies received and the nature
of the adverse effects caused by propanoic acid, 2-methyl-, monoester
with 2,2,4-trimethyl-1,3-pentanediol as well as the no-observed-
adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-
level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies are discussed in this unit.
    Propanoic acid, 2-methyl-, monoester with 2,2,4-trimethyl-1,3-
pentanediol has low acute toxicity with oral lethal dose
(LD)50 values >3,200 milligram/kilogram (mg/kg), dermal
LD50 values >14,000

mg/kg, and inhalation lethal concentration (LC)50 values
>3.55 mg/liter (L) in rats, rabbits, and guinea pigs. In a 15-day oral
gavage study in rats, the NOAEL was >1,000 mg/kg/day. In a combined
repeat dose toxicity and developmental and reproductive toxicity
screening test in rats, no reproductive or developmental toxicity was
observed at doses up to 1,000 mg/kg body weight (bw)/day, the highest
dose tested.
    No chronic toxicity studies were available; however, the lack of
systemic toxicity in two shorter repeat dose studies at the limit dose
of 1,000 mg/kg bw/day indicates that chronic toxicity is not a concern.
    Propanoic acid, 2-methyl-, monoester with 2,2,4-trimethyl-1,3-
pentanediol was negative genotoxicity in the Ames assay and in vivo
micronucleus assay.
    No cancer study is available for propanoic acid, 2-methyl-,
monoester with 2,2,4-trimethyl-1,3-pentanediol, however based on the
lack of genotoxicity, no adverse effects seen in subchronic toxicity
studies, and structure-activity relationship models (QSAR) modeling
that did not indicate any triggers for carcinogenicity, propanoic acid,
2-methyl-, monoester with 2,2,4-trimethyl-1,3-pentanediol is not
expected to be carcinogenic.
    Propanoic acid, 2-methyl-, monoester with 2,2,4-trimethyl-1,3-
pentanediol is a mixture of the 1-substituted (-65%) and the 3-
substituted (-35%) monoisobutyrate isomers of 2,2,4-trimethyl-l,3-
pentanediol. The half-life of the 1-substituted isomer in human and rat
blood is between 15 to 22 minutes. No specific information is available
on toxicity of propanoic acid, 2-methyl-, monoester with 2,2,4-
trimethyl-1,3-pentanediol metabolites. However, propanoic acid, 2-
methyl-, monoester with 2,2,4-trimethyl-1,3-pentanediol is rapidly
metabolized in rat blood, and toxicity of parent propanoic acid, 2-
methyl-, monoester with 2,2,4-trimethyl-1,3-pentanediol in rats was not
observed at doses up to 1,000 mg/kg/day, so metabolite toxicity is
anticipated to be low.

B. Toxicological Points of Departure/Levels of Concern

    Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA
identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of
concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the
pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no
appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for
derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed
based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to
determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL)
and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified
(the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with
the POD to calculate a safe exposure level--generally referred to as a
population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)--and a safe
margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes
that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the
Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of
the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the
general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete
description of the risk assessment process, see http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/riskassess.htm.
    Since there is no indication of toxicity at the limit dose, a
toxicological endpoint of concern for risk assessment purposes was not
identified. Since no endpoint of concern was identified for the acute
and chronic dietary exposure assessment and short and intermediate
dermal and inhalation exposure, a quantitative risk assessment for
propanoic acid, 2-methyl-, monoester with 2,2,4-trimethyl-1,3-
pentanediol is not necessary.

C. Exposure Assessment

    1. Dietary exposure from food and feed uses. In evaluating dietary
exposure to propanoic acid, 2-methyl-, monoester with 2,2,4-trimethyl-
1,3-pentanediol, EPA considered exposure under the proposed exemption
from the requirement of a tolerance. EPA assessed dietary exposures
from propanoic acid, 2-methyl-, monoester with 2,2,4-trimethyl-1,3-
pentanediol in food as follows:
    Dietary exposure can occur from eating foods containing residues of
propanoic acid, 2-methyl-, monoester with 2,2,4-trimethyl-1,3-
pentanediol. Because no hazard endpoint of concern was identified for
the acute and chronic dietary assessment (food and drinking water), a
quantitative dietary exposure risk assessment was not conducted.
    2. Dietary exposure from drinking water. Propanoic acid, 2-methyl-,
monoester with 2,2,4-trimethyl-1,3-pentanediol residues may be found in
drinking water. However, since an endpoint of concern was not
identified for the dietary assessment (food and drinking water), a
quantitative dietary exposure risk assessment was not conducted.
    3. From non-dietary exposure. The term ``residential exposure'' is
used in this document to refer to non-occupational, non-dietary
exposure (e.g., textiles (clothing and diapers), carpets, swimming
pools, and hard surface disinfection on walls, floors, tables).
    Propanoic acid, 2-methyl-, monoester with 2,2,4-trimethyl-1,3-
pentanediol is used as an inert ingredient in pesticide products that
could result in short- and intermediate-term residential exposure.
However, based on the lack of toxicity, a quantitative exposure
assessment from residential exposures was not performed.
    4. Cumulative effects from substances with a common mechanism of
toxicity. Section 408(b)(2)(D)(v) of FFDCA requires that, when
considering whether to establish, modify, or revoke a tolerance, the
Agency consider ``available information'' concerning the cumulative
effects of a particular pesticide's residues and ``other substances
that have a common mechanism of toxicity.''
    EPA has not found propanoic acid, 2-methyl-, monoester with 2,2,4-
trimethyl-1,3-pentanediol to share a common mechanism of toxicity with
any other substances, and propanoic acid, 2-methyl-, monoester with
2,2,4-trimethyl-1,3-pentanediol does not appear to produce a toxic
metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this
tolerance action, therefore, EPA has assumed that propanoic acid, 2-
methyl-, monoester with 2,2,4-trimethyl-1,3-pentanediol does not have a
common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information
regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common
mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such
chemicals, see EPA's Web site at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative.

D. Safety Factor for Infants and Children

    Based on an assessment of propanoic acid, 2-methyl-, monoester with
2,2,4-trimethyl-1,3-pentanediol, EPA has concluded that there are no
toxicological endpoints of concern for the U.S. population, including
infants and children, and has determined that a qualitative assessment
is appropriate. As part of its qualitative assessment, the Agency did
not use safety factors for assessing risk, and no additional safety
factor is needed for assessing risk to infants and children.

E. Aggregate Risks and Determination of Safety

    EPA determines whether acute and chronic dietary pesticide
exposures are safe by comparing aggregate exposure estimates to the
acute PAD (aPAD) and chronic PAD (cPAD). For linear cancer risks, EPA
calculates the lifetime probability of acquiring cancer given the
estimated aggregate exposure. Short-, intermediate-, and chronic-term
risks are evaluated by comparing the estimated aggregate food, water,
and residential exposure to the appropriate PODs to ensure that an
adequate MOE exists.
    Based on the lack of any toxicological endpoints of concern, EPA
concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result
to the general population or to infants and children from aggregate
exposure to propanoic acid, 2-methyl-, monoester with 2,2,4-trimethyl-
1,3-pentanediol residues.

V. Analytical Enforcement Methodology

    An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since
the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance without any numerical limitation.

VI. Conclusions

    Therefore, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is
established under 40 CFR 180.910 for propanoic acid, 2-methyl-,
monoester with 2,2,4-trimethyl-1,3-pentanediol (CAS Reg. No. 25265-77-
4) when used as an inert ingredient (solvent or co-solvent) in
pesticide formulations applied to growing crops or raw agricultural
commodities after harvest.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    This action establishes an exemption from the requirement of a
tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition
submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order
12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and Review'' (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review
under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive
Order 13211, entitled ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled ``Protection of
Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any information
collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), nor does it require any special
considerations under Executive Order 12898, entitled ``Federal Actions
to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations'' (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis
of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the exemption in this
final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), do not apply.
    This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food
handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this
action alter the relationships or distribution of power and
responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions
of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that
this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or
tribal governments, on the relationship between the national government
and the States or tribal governments, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, the Agency has
determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled
``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR
67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this
action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded
mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
(UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.).
    This action does not involve any technical standards that would
require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant
to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).

VIII. Congressional Review Act

    Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801 et seq.),
EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required
information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of
the rule in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: January 12, 2016.
Susan Lewis,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
    Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is amended as follows:

PART 180--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.

0
2. In Sec.  180.910, add alphabetically the entry ``Propanoic acid, 2-
methyl-, monoester with 2,2,4-trimethyl-1,3-pentanediol'' to the table
to read as follows:

Sec.  180.910  Inert ingredients used pre- and post-harvest; exemptions
from the requirement of a tolerance.

* * * * *

------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Inert ingredients              Limits               Uses
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
Propanoic acid, 2-methyl-,         ..............  Solvent, co-solvent.
 monoester with 2,2,4-trimethyl-
 1,3-pentanediol (CAS Reg. No.
 25265-77-4).....................

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

[FR Doc. 2016-01154 Filed 1-21-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 183 (Friday, September 20, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Page 57849]
[FR Doc No: 2013-22963]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-9011-2]

Environmental Impacts Statements; Notice of Availability

    Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General
Information<PHONE_NUMBER> or http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/.

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements
Filed 09/09/2013 Through 09/13/2013
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

Notice

    Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public
its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment
letters on EISs are available at: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/eisdata.html.

EIS No. 20130273, Final EIS, USFS, WY, Mackey Road Relocation, Review
Period Ends: 11/04/2013, Contact: Misty Hays<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20130274, Final EIS, USFS, OR, Galena Project, Review Period
Ends: 11/04/2013, Contact: Dave Halemeier<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20130275, Final EIS, AFS, BLM, CO, San Juan National Forest and
Proposed Tres Rios, Field Office Land and Resource Management Plan,
Review Period Ends: 10/21/2013, Contact: Mark Lambert<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    The U.S. Department of Agriculture's Forest Service and the U.S.
Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management are joint lead
agencies for the above project.

EIS No. 20130276, Draft Supplement, USN, WA, Introduction of the P-8A
Multi-Mission Aircraft into the U.S. Navy Fleet, Comment Period Ends:
11/04/2013, Contact: Cory Zahm<PHONE_NUMBER>.
EIS No. 20130277, Final Supplement, BLM, NV, Silver State Solar South
Project Proposed Resource Management Plan Amendment, Review Period
Ends: 10/21/2013, Contact: Nancy Christ<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Amended Notices

EIS No. 20130227, Draft EIS, NASA, CA, Proposed Demolition and
Environmental Cleanup Activities at Santa Susana Field Laboratory,
Comment Period Ends: 10/01/2013, Contact: Allen Elliott<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Revision to FR Notice Published 08/02/2013; Extending Comment Period
from 09/16/2013 to 0/01/2013.

    Dated: September 17, 2013.
Aimee S. Hessert,
Deputy Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal
Activities.
[FR Doc. 2013-22963 Filed 9-19-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 60 (Friday, March 27, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17376-17377]
[FR Doc No: 2020-06378]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket No. PHMSA-RSPA-2003-15122]

Pipeline Safety: Request for Special Permit; Texas Eastern
Transmission, L.P.

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: PHMSA is publishing this notice to solicit public comment on a
request from Texas Eastern Transmission L.P., (TET) to renew a
previously issued special permit. TET is seeking continued relief from
compliance with certain requirements in the Federal pipeline safety
regulations. At the conclusion of the 30-day comment period, PHMSA will
review the comments received from this notice as part of its evaluation
to grant or deny the special permit renewal request.

DATES: Submit any comments regarding this special permit request by
April 27, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Comments should reference the docket number for this special
permit request and may be submitted in the following ways:
     E-Gov Website: http://www.Regulations.gov. This site
allows the public to enter comments on any Federal Register notice
issued by any agency.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Management System: 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: Docket Management System: 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
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
    Instructions: You should identify the docket number for the special
permit request you are commenting on at the beginning of your comments.
If you submit your comments by mail, please submit two (2) copies. To
receive confirmation that PHMSA has received your comments, please
include a self-addressed stamped postcard. Internet users may submit
comments at http://www.Regulations.gov.

    Note:  There is a privacy statement published on http://www.Regulations.gov. Comments, including any personal information
provided, are posted without changes or edits to http://www.Regulations.gov.

    Confidential Business Information: Confidential Business
Information (CBI) is commercial or financial information that is both
customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from
public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this notice contain
commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as
private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or
responsive to this notice, it is important that you clearly designate
the submitted comments as CBI. Pursuant to 49 Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) Sec.  190.343, you may

ask PHMSA to give confidential treatment to information you give to the
agency by taking the following steps: (1) Mark each page of the
original document submission containing CBI as ``Confidential''; (2)
send PHMSA, along with the original document, a second copy of the
original document with the CBI deleted; and (3) explain why the
information you are submitting is CBI. Unless you are notified
otherwise, PHMSA will treat such marked submissions as confidential
under the FOIA, and these items will not be placed in the public docket
of this notice. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Kay
McIver, DOT, PHMSA-PHP-80, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590-0001. Any commentary PHMSA receives that is not specifically
designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this matter.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    General: Ms. Kay McIver by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email
at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    Technical: Mr. Joshua Johnson by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: PHMSA received a special permit renewal
request from TET, owned by Enbridge, Inc., to continue its pipeline
operation as described in the special permit renewal issued on May 15,
2015. The current special permit term ends May 15, 2020. The original
special permit was issued to TET by PHMSA on August 27, 2004. TET's
special permit renewal request submitted to PHMSA on November 6, 2019,
seeks to waive compliance from the requirements of 49 CFR 192.611,
``Change in class location: Confirmation or revision of maximum
allowable operating pressure.'' TET requests a renewal of this special
permit in lieu of pipe replacement or pressure reduction for 42 special
permit segments. The 42 special permit segments include 22 segments
containing 6.76 miles of 24-inch diameter pipe designated as Line 12
and 20 segments containing 5.86 miles of 30-inch diameter pipe
designated as Line 19. The special permit segments are located in
Perry, Berks, Huntingdon, Juniata, Montgomery and Bucks Counties
located in Pennsylvania, and in Hunterdon County in New Jersey. The
special permit renewal will allow for the continued operation of the
original Class 1 pipe in the Class 2 locations.
    The TET Line 12 and Line 19 pipelines have a maximum allowable
operating pressure of 1,050 pounds per square inch gauge in the special
permit segments.
    TET's special permit renewal request and existing special permit
with conditions are available for review and public comment in the
Docket No. PHMSA-RSPA-2003-15122. PHMSA invites interested persons to
review and submit comments on the special permit renewal request in the
docket. Please include any comments on potential safety and
environmental impacts that may result if the special permit renewal is
granted. Comments may include relevant data.
    Before issuing a decision on the special permit renewal request,
PHMSA will evaluate all comments received on or before the comment
closing date. Comments received after the closing date will be
evaluated, if it is possible to do so without incurring additional
expense or delay. PHMSA will consider each relevant comment it receives
in making its decision to grant or deny this special permit renewal
request.

    Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR
1.97.
Alan K. Mayberry,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 2020-06378 Filed 3-26-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 129 (Wednesday, July 7, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39070-39072]
[FR Doc No: 2010-16413]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-62419; File No. SR-ISE-2010-66]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule Change To Amend ISE Rule 2102 To
Add Additional Securities to the Pilot Rule

June 30, 2010.

    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 30, 2010, International Securities Exchange, LLC (the
``Exchange'' or ``ISE'') filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items have been prepared by the
Exchange. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments
on the

proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 2102 (Hours of Business) to add
additional securities to the pilot rule. The text of the proposed rule
change is below. [sic]
    The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's
Internet Web site at http://www.ise.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange proposes to amend ISE Rule 2102 to add securities
included in the Russell 1000[supreg] Index (``Russell 1000'') and
specified Exchange Traded Products (``ETP'') to the pilot rule. For
purposes of this filing, ETPs include Exchange Traded Funds
(``ETF''),\3\ Exchange Traded Vehicles (``ETV''),\4\ and Exchange
Traded Notes (``ETN'').\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ An ETF is an open-ended registered investment company under
the Investment Company Act of 1940 that has received certain
exemptive relief from the SEC to allow secondary market trading in
the ETF shares. ETFs are generally index-based products, in that
each ETF holds a portfolio of securities that is intended to provide
investment results that, before fees and expenses, generally
correspond to the price and yield performance of the underlying
benchmark index.
    \4\ An ETV tracks the underlying performance of an asset or
index, allowing investors exposure to underlying assets such as
futures contracts, commodities, and currency without actually
trading futures or taking physical delivery of the underlying asset.
An ETV is traded intraday like an ETF. An ETV is an open-ended trust
or partnership unit that is registered under the Securities Act of
1933.
    \5\ An ETN is a senior unsecured debt obligation designed to
track the total return of an underlying index, benchmark or
strategy, minus investor fees. ETNs are registered under the
Securities Act of 1933 and are redeemable to the issuer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Amendments to ISE Rule 2102 were approved by the Commission on June
10, 2010 on a pilot basis to end on December 10, 2010.\6\ As the
Exchange noted in its filing to amend ISE Rule 2102, during the pilot
period, the Exchange would continue to assess whether additional
securities need to be added and whether the parameters of the rule
would need to be modified to accommodate trading characteristics of
different securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 62271 (June 10,
2010), 75 FR 34493 (June 17, 2010) (SR-ISE-2010-58).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, the pilot list of securities is all securities included
in the S&P 500[supreg] Index (``S&P 500''). As noted in comment letters
to the original filing to amend ISE Rule 2102, concerns were raised
that including only securities in the S&P 500 in the pilot rule was too
narrow. In particular, commenters noted that securities that
experienced volatility on May 6, 2010, including ETFs, should be
included in the pilot.
    In response to these concerns, various exchanges and national
securities associations have collectively determined to expand the list
of pilot securities. As part of a coordinated filing with the other
markets, the Exchange proposes to add the securities included in the
Russell 1000 and specified ETPs to the pilot beginning in July 2010,
subject to Commission approval. The Exchange believes that adding these
securities would address concerns that the scope of the pilot may be
too narrow, while at the same time recognizing that during the pilot
period, the markets will continue to review whether and when to add
additional securities to the pilot and whether the parameters of the
rule should be adjusted for different securities.
    In particular, the Exchange proposes to add securities included in
the Russell 1000 because the Exchange believes that the securities
included in that index have similar trading characteristics to
securities included in the S&P 500 (many of which are the same
securities) and therefore the existing 10% price movement applicable
before invoking a trading pause may be appropriate for the Russell 1000
securities.
    In addition, the Exchange, in consultation with other markets,
proposes to add to the pilot a selected list of ETPs. The proposed
pilot list of ETPs was developed by first identifying all ETPs across
multiple asset classes and issuers, including domestic equity,
international equity, fixed income, currency, and commodities and
futures. Next, leveraged ETPs were excluded and sorted by notional
consolidated average daily volume (``CADV'') using year-to-date CADV
ending May 5, 2010, multiplied by the closing price on May 5, 2010.
Then, those symbols, including inverse ETPs, that trade over $2,000,000
CADV year to date through May 5, 2010, were selected. To ensure that
ETPs that track similar benchmarks but that do not meet this volume
criterion do not become subject to pricing volatility when a component
security is the subject of a trading pause, the Exchange proposes to
include certain non-leveraged ETPs that have traded below this volume
criterion, but that track the same benchmark as an ETP that does meet
the volume criterion.
    The proposed list of ETPs identify those ETPs that have component
securities that largely track the securities included in the S&P 500
and Russell 1000. Accordingly, if an S&P 500 or Russell 1000 security
experiences a trading pause, any resulting price volatility in a
related ETP, regardless of the CADV of the ETP, would also be subject
to a trading pause trigger. As with the proposal to add the Russell
1000 securities, the proposed ETPs were selected because they were
consistent with the existing 10% price movement before invoking a
trading pause for ETPs with these characteristics. The Exchange does
not believe that the 10% price movement is an appropriate threshold for
leveraged ETPs because by definition, leveraged ETPs are based on
multiples of price movements in the underlying index. Accordingly, a
10% price movement in a leveraged ETP may not signify extraordinary
volatility. Because the Exchange is not proposing to adopt revised
price movement thresholds at this time, the Exchange is therefore not
proposing to include leveraged ETPs for now.
    As noted above, during the pilot, the Exchange will continue to re-
assess, in consultation with other markets, whether specific ETPs
should be added or removed from the pilot list. The Exchange will also
assess whether the parameters for invoking a trading pause continue to
be the appropriate standard and whether the parameters should be
modified.
    To effect this change, the Exchange proposes to amend ISE Rule
2102(4) to provide that the pilot applies to all securities in the S&P
500, securities in the Russell 1000, as well as specified ETPs. The
pilot list of ETPs is identified in Exhibit 3.
2. Statutory Basis
    The statutory basis for the proposed rule change is Section 6(b)(5)
of the

Act,\7\ which requires the rules of an exchange to promote just and
equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. The proposed
rule change also is designed to support the principles of Section
11A(a)(1) \8\ of the Exchange Act in that it seeks to assure fair
competition among brokers and dealers and among exchange markets. The
Exchange believes that the proposed rule meets these requirements in
that it promotes uniformity across markets concerning decisions to
pause trading in a security when there are significant price movements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78k-1(a)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

    Within 35 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Federal Register or within such longer period (i) as the Commission may
designate up to 90 days of such date if it finds such longer period to
be appropriate and publishes its reasons for so finding or (ii) as to
which the self-regulatory organization consents, the Commission will:
    (A) By order approve such proposed rule change, or
    (B) Institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule
change should be disapproved.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The Commission notes that the Exchange has requested
accelerated approval of the filing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning all aspects of the foregoing, including whether
the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act.
    The Commission notes that ETF trades constituted a substantial
majority of the trades that were cancelled on May 6, and the proposed
amendments would bring certain ETFs within the scope of the trading
pause pilot for the first time. The Commission solicits comment
regarding the inclusion of ETFs within the trading pause pilot. The
Commission requests comment in particular on the implications of
including in the trading pause pilot ETFs on broad-based indices that
also underlie options and futures products. What are the potential
benefits and risks of including those ETFs in the pilot under
circumstances where other products based on the same index may not be
subject to any trading pause, or may be subject to a different type of
trading pause? Are existing mechanisms available in the markets for
those other products sufficient to address any cross-market linkage
concerns? What are the potential effects on price discovery and trading
behavior in the different markets?
    Similarly, the Commission solicits comments on the potential
benefits and risks of excluding such ETFs from the pilot, particularly
under circumstances where the securities underlying the ETF are
included in the pilot. If there are trading pauses for the component
securities of an index but not for an ETF based on that index, what
consequences might that have for the ETF or for other products based on
that index? If there are trading pauses in an ETF but not in the stocks
that underlie that ETF, what consequences might that have for the
underlying stocks or other products? What are the potential effects on
price discovery for the ETF, the underlying stocks and other products?
    Are there other market-based characteristics or metrics that should
be considered for purposes of determining which ETFs should be included
in the trading pause pilot, or for re-calibrating particular features
of the trading pause?
    In addition, the Commission solicits comments regarding the
operation of the trading pause pilot to date with respect to stocks in
the S&P 500.
    Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-ISE-2010-66 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2010-66. 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 Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of such filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make publicly available. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-ISE-2010-66 and should be
submitted on or before July 19, 2010.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The Commission believes that a 10-day comment period is
reasonable, given the urgency of the matter. It will provide
adequate time for comment.
    \11\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\11\
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-16413 Filed 7-6-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register: October 20, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 203)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 62235-62237]
[DOCID:fr20oc08-20]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2008-0752]
RIN 1625-AA87

Security Zone; West Basin, Port Canaveral Harbor, Cape Canaveral,
FL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish a security zone
encompassing the navigable waters of the West Basin, Port Canaveral
Harbor, Cape Canaveral, Florida. This security zone would be activated
4 hours prior to the scheduled arrival of a cruise ship at the West
Basin. It is only enforceable during Maritime Security (MARSEC) Levels
2 and 3 or when there is a specific credible threat during MARSEC Level
1. This security zone would remain activated until the departure of all
cruise ships from the West Basin.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before December 19, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number USCG-2008-0752 to the Docket Management Facility at the U.S.
Department of Transportation. To avoid duplication, please use only one
of the following methods:
    (1) Online: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (3) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call Lieutenant Commander Mark Gibbs at Coast Guard Sector
Jacksonville Prevention Department. Contact telephone is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the docket,
call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone
202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted,
without change, to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. We have an agreement with the
Department of Transportation to use the Docket Management Facility.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2008-0752), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each
comment. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address,
an e-mail address, or a phone number in the body of your document so
that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
You may submit your comments and material by electronic means, mail,
fax, or delivery to the Docket Management Facility at the address under
ADDRESSES; but please submit your comments and material by only one
means. If you submit them by mail or delivery, submit them in an
unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would
like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and
material received during the comment period. We may change this
proposed rule in view of them.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov at
any time. Enter the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2008-0752)
in the Search Documents box, and click ``Go >>.'' You may also visit
either the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground
floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays; or the Coast Guard
Sector Jacksonville Prevention Department, 4200 Ocean St., Atlantic
Beach, FL 32233-2416 between 7:30 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.

Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into
any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment
(or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008 issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for one to the Docket Management Facility at the address under
ADDRESSES explaining why one would be beneficial. If we determine that
one would aid this rulemaking, we will hold one at a time and place
announced by a later notice in the Federal Register.

Background and Purpose

    The September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center
complex in New York and the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia, proved the
devastating effects of subversive activity on U.S. critical
infrastructure. Since that time, the Coast Guard has been taking action
to ensure the security of maritime critical infrastructure and key
resources throughout the country.
    Subversive activity towards cruise ships and their associated
passengers and crew is of paramount concern to the Coast Guard.
Therefore, in order to strengthen security and further control access
to the West Basin, the Captain of the Port Jacksonville has decided,
after consultation with the Northeast and Eastern Central Florida Area
Maritime Security Committee and in cooperation with the Canaveral Port
Authority, to implement a security zone encompassing the West Basin.
This security zone is only enforceable during MARSEC Levels 2 and 3 or
when there is a specified credible threat during MARSEC Level 1.
    As reflected in 33 CFR 101.105, Maritime Security (MARSEC) level
means the level set to reflect the prevailing threat environment to the
marine elements of the national transportation system, including ports,
vessels, facilities, and critical assets and infrastructure located on
or adjacent to waters subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. The
higher the level number, the greater the threat:

    MARSEC Level 1 means the level for which minimum appropriate
protective security measures shall be maintained at all times.
    MARSEC Level 2 means the level for which appropriate additional
protective security measures shall be maintained for a period of

time as a result of heightened risk of a transportation security
incident.
    MARSEC Level 3 means the level for which further specific
protective security measures shall be maintained for a limited
period of time when a transportation security incident is probable
or imminent, although it may not be possible to identify the
specific target.

As specified in 33 CFR 101.300, the Captain of the Port will
communicate any changes in the MARSEC levels through a local Broadcast
Notice to Mariners, an electronic means, if available, or as detailed
in the Area Maritime Security Plan developed under 46 U.S.C. 70103(b).

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The security zone area includes all waters of the West Basin, Port
Canaveral Harbor, Cape Canaveral, FL northwest of an imaginary line
between two points: 28[deg]24[min]57.88[sec] N,
080[deg]37[min]25.69[sec] W to 28[deg]24[min]37.48[sec] N,
080[deg]37[min]34.03[sec] W. When the security zone is activated, and
thus subject to enforcement, entry is prohibited unless specifically
authorized by the Captain of the Port Jacksonville or his designated
representative.
    This security zone would be activated 4 hours before the scheduled
arrival of a cruise ship at the West Basin. It is only enforceable
during MARSEC Levels 2 and 3 or when the COTP determines there is a
specific credible threat during MARSEC Level 1. This security zone
would remain activated until the departure of all cruise ships from the
West Basin or when the credible threat no longer exists. The
restriction of vessel movements within this security zone is intended
to prohibit the movement of all vessels not operated by a local, State,
or Federal law enforcement organization unless specifically authorized
by the Captain of the Port, or his designated representative. The
public would be notified when the security zone is activated by the
display of a red flag on a 50-foot pole located at the east end of
Cruise Ship terminal 10 that is visible from all approaches to the
zone.

Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on 13 of these statutes or executive orders.

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits
under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under that Order.
    It is not a significant action because this security zone would be
activated 4 hours prior to the scheduled arrival of a cruise ship at
the West Basin. It is only enforceable during MARSEC Levels 2 and 3 or
when there is not a specific credible threat during MARSEC Level 1.
Once activated, this security zone would remain activated until the
departure of all cruise ships from the West Basin or when the COTP
determines there is a specific credible threat during MARSEC Level 1.
This security zone would be wholly confined within the existing West
Basin and would not impede traffic transiting from the Banana River to
the Atlantic Ocean.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this proposed rule would have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. This security zone would be activated 4 hours
prior to the scheduled arrival of a cruise ship at the West Basin. It
is only enforceable during MARSEC Levels 2 and 3 or when there is a
specific credible threat during MARSEC Level 1. Once activated, this
security zone would remain activated until the departure of all cruise
ships from the West Basin. This security zone would be wholly confined
within the existing West Basin and would not impede traffic transiting
from the Banana River to the Atlantic Ocean.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If the
proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or
governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its
provisions or options for compliance, please contact Lieutenant
Commander Mark Gibbs at Coast Guard Sector Jacksonville Prevention
Department. Contact telephone is<PHONE_NUMBER>. The Coast Guard will not
retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this
proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This proposed rule would call for no new collection of information
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this proposed rule
under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications
for federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

Taking of Private Property

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

Civil Justice Reform

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

Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13045,

Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and would not
create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that might
disproportionately affect children.

Indian Tribal Governments

    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it would not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. We
invite your comments on how this proposed rule might impact tribal
governments, even if that impact may not constitute a ``tribal
implication'' under the Order.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This proposed rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 5100.1 and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have made a preliminary determination under the Instruction that this
action is not likely to have a significant effect on the human
environment. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this
preliminary determination is available in the docket where indicated
under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to
the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed
rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50
U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Pub. L. 107-295,
116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

    2. Add Sec.  165.777 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.777  Security Zone; West Basin, Port Canaveral Harbor, Cape
Canaveral, Florida.

    (a) Regulated Area. The following area is a security zone: All
waters of the West Basin of Port Canaveral Harbor northwest of an
imaginary line between two points: 28[deg]24'57.88'' N,
080[deg]37'25.69'' W to 28[deg]24'37.48'' N, 080[deg]37'34.03'' W.
    (b) Requirement. (1) This security zone will be activated 4 hours
prior to the scheduled arrival of a cruise ship at the West Basin of
Port Canaveral Harbor during MARSEC Levels 2 and 3 or when the Captain
of the Port Jacksonville (COTP) determines there is a specified
credible threat during MARSEC Level 1. This security zone will not be
deactivated until the departure of all cruise ships from the West
Basin. The zone is subject to enforcement when it is activated.
    (2) Under general security zone regulations of 33 CFR 165.33, no
vessel or person may enter or navigate within the regulated area unless
specifically authorized by the COTP or the COTP's designated
representative. Any person or vessel authorized to enter the security
zone must operate in strict conformance with any direction given by the
COTP or a designated representative and leave the security zone
immediately if so ordered.
    (3) The public will be notified when the security zone is activated
by the display of a red flag on a 50-foot pole located at the east end
of Cruise Ship terminal 10. This red flag will be lowered when the
security zone is deactivated.
    (c) Definitions. The following definition applies to this section:
    Designated representative means Coast Guard Patrol Commanders
including Coast Guard coxswains, petty officers and other officers
operating Coast Guard vessels, and federal, state, and local law
enforcement officers designated by or assisting the COTP in the
enforcement of the security zone.
    (d) Captain of the Port Contact Information. If you have questions
about this regulation, please contact the Sector Command Center at
(904) 564-7513.
    (e) Enforcement periods. This section will only be subject to
enforcement when the security zone described in paragraph (a) is
activated as specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section.

    Dated: September 29, 2008.
Paul F. Thomas,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Jacksonville.
[FR Doc. E8-24808 Filed 10-17-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 240 (Wednesday, December 14, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 77669-77670]
[FR Doc No: 2011-31854]

========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 240 / Wednesday, December 14, 2011 /
Rules and Regulations

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2011-0625; Airspace Docket No. 11-AEA-16]

Amendment of Class D and E Airspace; North Philadelphia, PA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends Class D and Class E airspace at Northeast
Philadelphia Airport, North Philadelphia, PA, due to the closing of
Willow Grove Naval Air Station and Warminster Naval Air Warfare Center
(NAWC). This action also corrects a typographic error in the regulatory
text for the Class E airspace radius and ceiling level, and adjusts the
geographic coordinates of the airport. This action enhances the safety
and airspace management of Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations in
the North Philadelphia, PA, airspace area.

DATES: Effective date: 0901 UTC, February 9, 2012. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
title 1, Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual
revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and publication of conforming amendments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Fornito, Airspace Specialist,
Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic
Organization, Federal Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta,
Georgia 30320; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    On August 10, 2011, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend Class D and Class E
airspace at Northeast Philadelphia Airport, North Philadelphia, PA. (76
FR 49383). Interested parties were invited to participate in this
rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal to the
FAA. No comments were received. Subsequent to publication, the FAA
found a typographic error in the regulatory text for the radius of the
controlled airspace listed for Class E surface airspace, and makes the
correction from a 5-mile radius to a 5.6-mile radius of the airport,
and also removes reference to the ceiling level that was cited in
error. Also, the geographic coordinates of the airport are adjusted.
    Class D and E airspace designations are published in paragraphs
5000 and 6002, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.9V dated August 9, 2011,
and effective September 15, 2011, which is incorporated by reference in
14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and Class E airspace designations listed in
this document will be published subsequently in the Order.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 to amend Class D airspace and Class E surface airspace at
Northeast Philadelphia Airport, North Philadelphia, PA. The Class D and
Class E surface airspace is reconfigured due to the closing of the
Willow Grove Naval Air Station and Warminster NAWC. The boundary radius
of the controlled airspace listed in the regulatory text for Class E
airspace is corrected from a 5-mile radius to a 5.6-mile radius of the
airport and reference to the ceiling level listed for Class E airspace
is removed. Also, the geographic coordinates of the airport are
adjusted to be in concert with the FAAs aeronautical database. This
action enhances the safety and management of IFR operations at the
airport.
    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore, (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority.
    This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part, A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it amends Class D and E airspace at Northeast Philadelphia Airport,
North Philadelphia, PA.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation
Administration Order 7400.9V, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, dated August 9, 2011, and effective September 15, 2011, is
amended as follows:

Paragraph 5000 Class D Airspace.

* * * * *

AEA PA D North Philadelphia, PA [Amended]

Northeast Philadelphia Airport, Philadelphia, PA
    (Lat. 40[deg]04'55'' N., long. 75[deg]00'38'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
2,600 feet MSL within a 5.6-mile radius of the Northeast
Philadelphia Airport. This Class D airspace area is effective during
the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to
Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously
published in the Airport/Facility Directory.

Paragraph 6002 Class E airspace designated as surface areas.

* * * * *

AEA PA E2 North Philadelphia, PA [Amended]

Northeast Philadelphia Airport, Philadelphia, PA
    (Lat. 40[deg]04'55'' N., long. 75[deg]00'38'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from the surface within a 5.6-
mile radius of the Northeast Philadelphia Airport. This Class E
airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times
established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The effective date and
time will thereafter be continuously published in the Airport/
Facility Directory.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on November 29, 2011.
Mark D. Ward,
Manager, Operation Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Air Traffic
Organization.
[FR Doc. 2011-31854 Filed 12-13-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 214 (Thursday, November 5, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 68448-68451]
[FR Doc No: 2015-28105]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0456; FRL-9936-57-Region 4]

Air Plan Approval; TN; Knox County Emissions Statements

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct
final action to approve changes to the Tennessee state implementation
plan (SIP) submitted by the State of Tennessee, through the Tennessee
Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) on behalf of the Knox
County Department of Air Quality Management (County Department), on
March 14, 2014, and May 14, 2015, that require certain sources in Knox
County, Tennessee, to report actual emissions of volatile organic
compounds (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX) to the County
Department annually. These changes amend the Knox County Air Quality
Management Regulations in the Knox County portion of the Tennessee SIP
to reflect the State of Tennessee's SIP-approved emissions statement
requirements for Knox County. This action is being taken pursuant to
the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and its implementing regulations.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective January 4, 2016 without
further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by December 7,
2015. If EPA receives such comments, it will publish a timely
withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform
the public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2015-0456 by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: ``EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0456'', Air Regulatory Management
Section (formerly Regulatory Development Section), Air Planning and
Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, Air
Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch,
Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional
Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
excluding Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. ``EPA-R04-OAR-
2015-0456''. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through
www.regulations.gov or email, information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an
``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without
going through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information may not be publicly available, i.e., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet
and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly
available docket materials are available either electronically in
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Regulatory Management
Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and
Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA
requests that if at all possible, you contact the person listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to schedule your inspection.
The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through
Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tiereny Bell, Air Regulatory
Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. Ms. Bell can be reached at<PHONE_NUMBER> or via email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On March 12, 2008, EPA promulgated revised 8-hour ozone national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) of 0.075 parts per million (ppm).
See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008). Under EPA's regulations at 40 CFR
part 50, the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS is attained when the 3-year
average of the annual fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average
ambient air quality ozone concentrations is less than or equal to 0.075
ppm. See 40 CFR 50.15. Ambient air quality monitoring data for the 3-
year period must meet a data completeness requirement. The ambient air
quality monitoring data completeness requirement is met when the
average percent of days with valid ambient monitoring data is greater
than 90 percent, and no single year has less than 75 percent data
completeness as determined in Appendix I of part 50.
    Upon promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, the CAA requires EPA
to designate as nonattainment any area that is violating the NAAQS,
based on the three most recent years of ambient air quality data at the
conclusion of the designation process. EPA designated Blount and Knox
Counties in Tennessee as a nonattainment area (hereinafter referred to
as the ``Knoxville Area'' or ``Area'') for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS
on April 30, 2012 (effective July 20, 2012) using 2008-2010 ambient air
quality data. See 77 FR 30088 (May 21, 2012). At the time of
designation, the Knoxville Area was classified as a marginal
nonattainment area for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. On March 6, 2015,
EPA finalized a rule entitled ``Implementation of the 2008 National
Ambient Air Quality Standards for

Ozone: State Implementation Plan Requirements'' (SIP Requirements Rule)
that establishes the requirements that state, tribal, and local air
quality management agencies must meet as they develop implementation
plans for areas where air quality exceeds the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS.\1\ See 80 FR 12264. This rule establishes nonattainment area
attainment dates based on Table 1 of section 181(a) of the CAA,
including an attainment date three years after the July 20, 2012,
effective date, for areas classified as marginal for the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. Therefore, the attainment date for the Knoxville Area is
July 20, 2015.\2\ On July 13, 2015, EPA determined that the Area had
attained the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS and redesignated the Area to
attainment. See 80 FR 39970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The SIP Requirements Rule addresses a range of nonattainment
area SIP requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, including
requirements pertaining to attainment demonstrations, reasonable
further progress (RFP), reasonably available control technology,
reasonably available control measures, major new source review,
emission inventories, and the timing of SIP submissions and of
compliance with emission control measures in the SIP. The rule also
revokes the 1997 ozone NAAQS and establishes anti-backsliding
requirements.
    \2\ On August 27, 2015, EPA proposed to determine that the Area
attained the standard by the attainment date. 80 FR 51992.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Ground level ozone is not emitted directly into the air, but is
created by chemical reactions between NOX and VOC in the
presence of sunlight. Emissions from industrial facilities and electric
utilities, motor vehicle exhaust, gasoline vapors, and chemical
solvents are some of the major sources of NOX and VOC.
Section 182(a)(3)(B) of the CAA requires each state with ozone
nonattainment areas to submit a SIP revision requiring annual emissions
statements to be submitted to the state by the owner or operator of
each NOX or VOC stationary source \3\ located within a
nonattainment area showing the actual emissions of NOX and
VOC from that source. The first statement is due three years from the
area's nonattainment designation, and subsequent statements are due at
least annually thereafter. The State of Tennessee satisfied the
obligation to develop a nonattainment SIP revision for the Knoxville
Area addressing section 182(a)(3)(B). EPA approved the State's SIP
revision addressing emissions statement requirements for the 2008 8-
hour ozone standard on March 5, 2015. See 80 FR 11974.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ A state may waive the emissions statements requirement for
any class or category of stationary sources which emit less than 25
tons per year of VOCs or NOX if the state meets the
requirements of section 182(a)(3)(B)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Knox County Air Pollution Control Board (County Board) adopted
a new regulation, Knox County Air Quality Management Regulation Section
26.5.C--Emissions Statement, on October 16, 2013, requiring certain
sources to report actual emissions of VOC and NOX to the
County Department annually and amended that regulation on January 21,
2015, to more closely reflect the Tennessee emissions statements
requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard in Tennessee Air
Pollution Control Regulation 1200-3-18ndash;.02--General Provisions and
Applicability. EPA is approving the portion of the March 14, 2014, SIP
submittal containing the version of Section 26.5.C adopted by the
County Board on October 16, 2013, and the May 14, 2015, SIP submittal
containing the revisions to Section 26.5.C adopted by the County Board
on January 21, 2015. More information on EPA's analysis of the SIP
revisions is provided below.

II. Analysis of State's Submittal

    The March 14, 2014, and May 14, 2015, submittals seek to add Knox
County Air Quality Management Regulation Section 26.5.C to the Knox
County portion of the Tennessee SIP. EPA initially approved Knox County
Air Quality Management Regulation Section 26.5--Monitoring, Recording,
and Reporting of Source Emissions, into the Tennessee SIP in 1972. See
37 FR 10842 (May 31, 1972). Knox County is amending Section 26.5 to
include Section 26.5.C--Emissions Statement that reflects the State of
Tennessee's SIP-approved emissions statement requirements in Tennessee
Air Pollution Control Regulation 1200-3-18-.02. Section 26.5.C requires
owners and operators of sources with actual emissions of 25 tons per
year or more of VOC or NOX to submit annual reports of
actual emissions to the County Department. Tennessee's May 14, 2015,
SIP submittal contains the County Board's January 21, 2015, revisions
to Section 26.5.C. that modify the submission deadline and include more
detailed certification requirements. The revisions set a June 15
deadline to submit emissions statements to the County Department for
2015 and a March 31 deadline for 2016 and beyond. The revisions also
require that an official of the company sign the report, certifying
that the information and data contained in the report is accurate to
the best knowledge of the individual certifying the report. EPA has
determined that these SIP submissions meet the requirements of the CAA.

III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of Knox County
Air Quality Management Regulation Section 26.0 entitled ``Monitoring,
Recording, and Reporting'', effective January 21, 2015, addressing
annual emissions statements for certain VOC and NOX sources
in Knox County. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these
documents generally available electronically through
www.regulations.gov and/or in hard copy at the EPA Region 4 office (see
the ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).

IV. Final Action

    EPA is approving the portion of the March 14, 2014, SIP submittal
containing the version of Section 26.5.C adopted by the County Board on
October 16, 2013, and the May 14, 2015, SIP submittal containing the
revisions to Section 26.5.C adopted by the County Board on January 21,
2015. EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no
adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this
Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document
that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should
adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective January 4, 2016
without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by
December 7, 2015.
    If EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a document
withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will
not take effect. All adverse comments received will then be addressed
in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not
institute a second comment period. Parties interested in commenting
should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public
is advised that this rule will be effective on January 4, 2016 and no
further action will be taken on the proposed rule.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of

the CAA. Accordingly, this 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 Order 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by January 4, 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. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are
encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of
proposed rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules
section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate
petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can
withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed
rulemaking. 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, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: October 20, 2015.
Heather McTeer Toney,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    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 RR--Tennessee

0
2. Section 52.2220(c), is amended under Table 3--EPA Approved Knox
County, Regulations by revising the entry for ``Section 26.0'' to read
as follows:

Sec.  52.2220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                 Table 3--EPA Approved Knox County, Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            State
       State section              Title/Subject        effective date      EPA approval date        Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
26.0......................  Monitoring, Recording,          1/21/2015  11/5/2015 [Insert
                             and Reporting.                             citation of Federal
                                                                        Register].

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

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 2015-28105 Filed 11-4-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P