[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 206 (Thursday, October 24, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 63388-63394]
[FR Doc No: 2013-24706]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2013-0136, EPA-R05-OAR-2013-0215, EPA-R05-OAR-2013-0344,
EPA-R05-OAR-2013-0378; FRL-9901-61-Region5]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Ohio; Dayton-Springfield, Steubenville-Weirton, Toledo, and
Parkersburg-Marietta; 1997 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan Revision to
Approved Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), EPA is approving requests by
Ohio to revise the 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance air quality state
implementation plan (SIP) for the Dayton-Springfield area, the Toledo
area, and the Ohio portions of the Parkersburg-Marietta and
Steubenville-Weirton, West Virginia-Ohio areas, to replace onroad
emissions inventories and motor vehicle emissions budgets (budgets)
with inventories and budgets developed using EPA's Motor Vehicle
Emissions Simulator (MOVES) emissions model. The Dayton-Springfield
area consists of Clark, Greene, Miami, and Montgomery Counties. The
Ohio portion of the Steubenville-Weirton, West Virginia-Ohio area
consists of Jefferson County, Ohio. The Toledo area consists of Lucas
and Wood Counties. The Ohio portion of the Parkersburg-Marietta, West
Virginia-Ohio area consists of Washington County. Ohio submitted the
SIP revision requests on the following dates: Dayton-Springfield on
February 11, 2013; Steubenville-Weirton on March 15, 2013; Toledo on
April 18, 2013; Parkersburg-Marietta on April 26, 2013.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective December 23, 2013,
unless EPA receives adverse comments by November 25, 2013. If adverse
comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the
direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that the
rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Nos. EPA-R05-
OAR-2013-0136 (Dayton-Springfield), EPA-R05-OAR-2013-0215
(Steubenville-Weirton), EPA-R05-OAR-2013-0344 (Toledo), EPA-R05-OAR-
2013-0378 (Parkersburg-Marietta), 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: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Control Strategies Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    5. Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Control Strategies
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information. The Regional Office 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 Nos. EPA-R05-OAR-
2013-0136, EPA-R05-OAR-2013-0215, EPA-R05-OAR-2013-0344, EPA-R05-OAR-
2013-0378. 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 information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. 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. Docket: All
documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index.
Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other

material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only
in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division,
77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
Federal holidays. We recommend that you telephone Anthony Maietta,
Environmental Protection Specialist, at<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting
the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anthony Maietta, Environmental
Protection Specialist, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch
(AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:

I. What is EPA approving?
II. What is the background for this action?
    a. SIP Budgets and Transportation Conformity.
    b. Prior Approval of Budgets.
    c. The MOVES Emissions Model.
    d. Submission of New Budgets Based on MOVES2010a.
III. What are the criteria for approval?
IV. What is EPA's analysis of the state's submittals?
    a. The Revised Inventories.
    b. Approvability of the MOVES2010a-based Budgets.
    c. Applicability of MOBILE6.2-based Budgets.
V. What action is EPA taking?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews.

I. What is EPA approving?

    EPA is approving new MOVES2010a-based onroad emissions inventories
and budgets for the Dayton-Springfield and Toledo areas, and the Ohio
portions of the Steubenville-Weirton and Parkersburg-Marietta, West
Virginia-Ohio 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance areas, that will replace
MOBILE-based inventories and budgets in the SIP. These areas were
redesignated to attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard effective
June 15, 2007 (72 FR 26648, 44784, 27652, 27640), and MOBILE6.2-based
onroad emissions inventories and budgets were approved in those
actions. Upon effective date of approval of the MOVES-based budgets,
they must then be used in future transportation conformity analyses for
the area as required by section 176(c) of the CAA. See the official
release of the MOVES2010 emissions model (75 FR 9411-9414) for
background, and section II.(c) below for details.

II. What is the background for this action?

a. SIP Budgets and Transportation Conformity

    Under the CAA, states are required to submit, at various times,
control strategy SIP revisions and maintenance plans for nonattainment
and maintenance areas for a given national ambient air quality standard
(NAAQS). These SIP revisions and maintenance plans include budgets of
onroad mobile source emissions for criteria pollutants and/or their
precursors. Transportation plans and projects ``conform'' to (i.e., are
consistent with) the SIP when they will not cause or contribute to air
quality violations, or delay timely attainment of the NAAQS or an
interim milestone.

b. Prior Approval of Budgets

    EPA previously approved MOBILE6.2-based budgets for the Dayton-
Springfield and Toledo areas, and the Ohio portions of the Parkersburg-
Marietta and Steubenville-Weirton, West Virginia-Ohio 8-hour ozone
maintenance areas, for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen
oxides (NOX). The Dayton-Springfield area's ozone
maintenance plan established 2005 and 2018 budgets. The Toledo area and
the Ohio portions of the Parkersburg-Marietta and Steubenville-Weirton
areas' ozone maintenance plans established 2009 and 2018 budgets. These
budgets demonstrated a reduction in emissions from the monitored
attainment year.

c. The MOVES Emissions Model

    The MOVES model is EPA's state of the art tool for estimating
highway emissions. EPA announced the release of MOVES2010 in March 2010
(75 FR 9411). Use of the MOVES model is required for regional emissions
analyses for transportation conformity determinations outside of
California that begin after March 2, 2013.
    MOVES2010a was used to estimate emissions in the areas for the same
milestone years as the original onroad emissions inventories and
budgets in the SIP. The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA) is
revising the onroad emissions inventories and budgets using the latest
planning assumptions, including population and employment updates. In
addition, newer vehicle registration data has been used to update the
age distribution of the vehicle fleet. Since future demonstrations of
conformity will use emissions estimates derived with MOVES, it is
appropriate to establish benchmarks based on MOVES. The interagency
consultation group has had extensive consultation on the requirements
and need for new budgets.

d. Submission of New Budgets Based on MOVES2010a

    Ohio submitted final budgets based on MOVES2010a that cover the
Dayton-Springfield (submitted February 11, 2013) and Toledo (submitted
April 18, 2013) areas and the Ohio portions of the Parkersburg-Marietta
(submitted April 26, 2013) and Steubenville-Weirton (submitted March
15, 2013), West Virginia-Ohio areas. Ohio did not receive any comments
for the Toledo, Dayton-Springfield, or Parkersburg-Marietta submittals.
Ohio received comments requesting clarification on the Steubenville-
Weirton submittal from the West Virginia Division of Air Quality and
provided responses to the clarifications requested.
    For the Dayton-Springfield area, the new MOVES2010a-based budgets
are for the years 2005 and 2018 for both VOCs and NOX. For
the Toledo area and the Ohio portions of the Parkersburg-Marietta and
Steubenville-Weirton areas, the new MOVES2010a-based budgets are for
the years 2009 and 2018 for both VOCs and NOX. The budgets
for these areas are detailed later in this notice. Ohio also provided
the areas' total emissions, including onroad mobile emissions
inventories based on MOVES2010a, for the attainment year, the interim
budget year, and the maintenance year. The combined emissions reduction
from all sectors between the attainment year and the maintenance year
is shown as well. Total emissions include point, area, nonroad mobile
and onroad mobile sources. The total emissions and combined emissions
reduction from all sectors from 2005 to 2018 for VOC and NOX
for the area is shown in tables 1 and 2. In tables 1 through 8, for
onroad emissions of both VOC and NOX for the years noted
with an asterisk, a 15% safety margin\1\ has been applied to reach the
values shown.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The safety margin is achieved by adding a certain percentage
of emissions, in tons per day, onto the MOVES-based onroad emissions
budgets. In this case, Ohio chose to add a 15% safety margin to
their budgets. The safety margin cannot exceed the combined
emissions reduction for the area.

  Table 1--Total VOC Emissions With MOVES2010a Mobile Emissions in Dayton-Springfield-Springfield, Ohio (Clark,
                                     Greene, Miami, and Montgomery Counties)
                                                 [tons per day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Combined
                                                       2005                            2018*         emissions
                     Sector                         Attainment     2009 Interim     Maintenance      reduction
                                                                                (2005-2018)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...........................................            3.45            3.47            3.72
Area............................................           46.23           47.76           52.75
Onroad..........................................           55.37           43.02           19.44
Nonroad.........................................           12.16            9.62            7.91
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................          115.21          103.87           83.82           31.39
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Table 2--Total NOX Emissions With MOVES2010a Mobile Emissions in Dayton-Springfield-Springfield, Ohio (Clark,
                                     Greene, Miami, and Montgomery Counties)
                                                 [tons per day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Combined
                                                       2005                            2018*         emissions
                     Sector                         Attainment     2009 Interim     Maintenance      reduction
                                                                                (2005-2018)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...........................................           36.64           36.24           37.93
Area............................................            4.65            5.09            5.45
Onroad..........................................           20.24           16.68            9.84
Nonroad.........................................           84.66           69              28.23
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................          146.19          127.01           81.45           64.74
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Table 3--Total VOC Emissions With MOVES2010a Mobile Emissions in Toledo, Ohio (Lucas and Wood Counties)
                                                 [tons per day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Combined
                                                       2004                            2018*         emissions
                     Sector                         Attainment    2009*  Interim    Maintenance      reduction
                                                                                (2004-2018)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...........................................            7.87            7.21            7.99
Area............................................           30.55           30.40           32.60
Onroad..........................................           26.86           18.79            8.14
Nonroad.........................................           10.31            7.78            0.57
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................           75.59           64.18           49.30           26.29
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Table 4--Total NOX Emissions With MOVES2010a Mobile Emissions in Toledo, Ohio (Lucas and Wood Counties)
                                                 [tons per day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Combined
                                                       2004                            2018*         emissions
                     Sector                         Attainment     2009* Interim    Maintenance      reduction
                                                                                (2004-2018)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...........................................           35.54           27.22           12.90
Area............................................            1.70            1.91            1.97
Onroad..........................................           55.12           40.68           15.34
Nonroad.........................................           24.82           19.76            9.65
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................          117.18           89.57           39.86           77.32
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Table 5--Total VOC Emissions With MOVES2010a Mobile Emissions in the Ohio Portion of Parkersburg-Marietta, West
                                     Virginia-Ohio (Washington County, Ohio)
                                                 [tons per day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Combined
                                                       2004                            2018*         emissions
                     Sector                         Attainment     2009* Interim    Maintenance      reduction
                                                                                (2004-2018)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...........................................            2.06            2.28            2.70
Area............................................            2.92            2.81            2.90
Onroad..........................................            4.88            4.15            1.93
Nonroad.........................................            1.17            0.96            0.77
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................           11.03           10.20            8.30            2.73
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Table 6--Total NOX Emissions With MOVES2010a Mobile Emissions in the Ohio Portion of Parkersburg-Marietta, West
                                     Virginia-Ohio (Washington County, Ohio)
                                                 [tons per day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Combined
                                                       2004                            2018*         emissions
                     Sector                         Attainment     2009* Interim    Maintenance      reduction
                                                                                (2004-2018)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...........................................           71.87           15.07           21.96
Area............................................            0.22            0.24            0.25
Onroad..........................................            8.30            7.33            3.25
Nonroad.........................................            5.00            4.17            3.59
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................           85.39           26.81           29.05           56.34
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Table 7--Total VOC Emissions With MOVES2010a Mobile Emissions in the Ohio Portion of Steubenville-Weirton, West
                                     Virginia-Ohio (Jefferson County, Ohio)
                                                 [tons per day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Combined
                                                       2004                            2018*         emissions
                     Sector                         Attainment     2009* Interim    Maintenance      reduction
                                                                                (2004-2018)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...........................................            1.15            1.25            1.26
Area............................................            3.06            2.91            2.91
Onroad..........................................            5.62            4.83            2.14
Nonroad.........................................            0.93            0.87            0.60
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................           10.76            9.86            6.91            3.85
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Table 8--Total NOX Emissions With MOVES2010a Mobile Emissions in the Ohio Portion of Steubenville-Weirton, West
                                     Virginia-Ohio (Jefferson County, Ohio)
                                                 [tons per day]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Combined
                                                       2004                            2018*         emissions
                     Sector                         Attainment     2009* Interim    Maintenance      reduction
                                                                                (2004-2018)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point...........................................          154.73           66.40           46.38
Area............................................            0.18            0.21            0.21
Onroad..........................................            6.69            5.91            2.43
Nonroad.........................................            2.25            1.93            1.58
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................................          163.85           74.45           50.60          133.25
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The metropolitan planning organizations for these areas added only
a portion of the overall safety margin available for NOX and
VOCs to the budgets for the years indicated with an asterisk in tables
1 through 8. As shown in tables 1 through 8, the submittals demonstrate
how the areas' emissions decline from the attainment year to maintain
the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.
    No additional control measures were needed to maintain the 1997 8-
hour ozone standard in the Dayton-Springfield and Toledo areas, and the
Ohio portions of the Parkersburg-Marietta and Steubenville-Weirton,

West Virginia-Ohio areas. An appropriate safety margin for
NOX and VOCs was selected by the interagency consultation
groups for each area, which consist of representatives from the Federal
Highway Administration, OEPA, Ohio Department of Transportation, and
EPA. The submitted budgets for these areas are addressed later in this
notice.

III. What are the criteria for approval?

    EPA requires that revisions to existing SIPs and budgets continue
to meet applicable requirements (e.g., reasonable further progress,
attainment, or maintenance). The SIP must also meet any applicable SIP
requirements under CAA section 110. In addition, adequacy criteria
found at 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) must be satisfied before EPA can find
submitted budgets adequate and approve them for conformity purposes.
    Areas can revise their budgets and inventories using MOVES without
revising their entire SIP if (1) the SIP continues to meet applicable
requirements when the previous motor vehicle emissions inventories are
replaced with MOVES base year and milestone, attainment, or maintenance
year inventories, and (2) the state can document that growth and
control strategy assumptions for non-motor vehicle sources continue to
be valid and any minor updates do not change the overall conclusions of
the SIP. The submittals meet this requirement as described below in the
next section.
    For more information, see EPA's latest ``Policy Guidance on the Use
of MOVES2010 for SIP Development, Transportation Conformity, and Other
Purposes'' (April 2012), available online at: www.epa.gov/otaq/stateresources/transconf/policy.htm#models.

IV. What is EPA's analysis of the state's submittals?

a. The Revised Inventories

    The SIP revision requests for these areas' 1997 ozone maintenance
plans seek to revise only the onroad mobile source inventories. OEPA
has certified that the control strategies for each area remain the same
as in the original SIP, and that no other control strategies are
necessary. OEPA finds that growth and control strategy assumptions for
non-mobile sources (i.e., area, nonroad, and point) have not changed
significantly from the original submittals. This is confirmed by the
monitoring data for the areas, which continue to monitor attainment for
the 1997 8-hour ozone standard.
    OEPA's submittals confirm that the total emissions in the revised
SIP (which includes MOVES2010a emissions from mobile sources) as shown
in tables 1 through 8 demonstrate that emissions in the areas continue
to decline and remain below the attainment levels.
    Ohio has submitted MOVES2010a-based budgets for the Dayton-
Springfield and Toledo areas, and the Ohio portions of the Parkersburg-
Marietta and Steubenville-Weirton, West Virginia-Ohio areas that are
clearly identified in the submittals. The budgets are displayed in
tables 9 through 12.

 Table 9--MOVES-Based Budgets for the Dayton-Springfield 1997 Ozone Area
          (Clark, Greene, Miami, and Montgomery Counties, Ohio)
                             [tons per day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Year                         2005            2018
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC.....................................           53.37           22.35
NOX.....................................           84.66           32.47
------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Table 10--Motor MOVES-Based Budgets for the Toledo 1997 Ozone Area
                        (Lucas and Wood Counties)
                             [tons per day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Year                         2009            2018
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC.....................................           21.61            9.36
NOX.....................................           46.78           17.64
------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Table 11--Motor MOVES-Based Budgets for the Ohio Portion of the
     Parkersburg-Marietta 1997 Ozone Area (Washington County, Ohio)
                             [tons per day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Year                         2009            2018
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC.....................................            4.15            1.93
NOX.....................................            7.33            3.25
------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Table 12--MOVES-Based Budgets for the Ohio Portion of the Steubenville-
            Weirton 1997 Ozone Area (Jefferson County, Ohio)
                             [tons per day]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Year                         2009            2018
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VOC.....................................            4.83            2.14
NOX.....................................            5.91            2.43
------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Approvability of the MOVES2010a-based Budgets

    EPA is approving the MOVES2010a-based budgets submitted by Ohio for
use in determining transportation conformity in the Dayton-Springfield
and Toledo areas, and the Ohio portions of the Parkersburg-Marietta and
Steubenville-Weirton, West Virginia-Ohio 1997 ozone maintenance areas.
EPA evaluated the MOVES-based budgets submitted using the adequacy
criteria found in 40 CFR 93.118(e)(4) and our in-depth evaluation of
the state's submittals and SIP requirements.
    Before submitting the revised budgets, OEPA followed all necessary
conformity procedures. The budgets are clearly identified and precisely
quantified in the submittals. The budgets, when considered with other
emissions sources, are consistent with continued maintenance of the
1997 ozone standard. The budgets are clearly related to the emissions
inventories and control measures in the SIP. The changes from the
previous budgets are clearly explained with the change in the model
from MOBILE6.2 to MOVES2010a and the revised and updated planning
assumptions. The inputs to the model are detailed in the Appendices to
the submittals. EPA has reviewed the inputs to the MOVES2010a modeling
and participated in the consultation process. The Federal Highway
Administration and the Ohio Department of Transportation have taken a
lead role in working with the areas' metropolitan planning
organizations to provide accurate, timely information and inputs to the
MOVES2010a model runs. The state has documented that growth and control
strategy assumptions for non-motor vehicle sources (i.e. area, nonroad,
and point) continue to be valid and any minor updates do not change the
overall conclusions of the SIP.
    Ohio's submissions confirm that the SIP continues to demonstrate
maintenance of the 1997 ozone standard because the total emissions in
the revised SIP (including MOVES2010a emissions for onroad mobile
sources) continue to decrease from the attainment year to the final
year of the maintenance plans for these areas, as shown in tables 1
through 8. As tables 1 through 12 show, the submitted budgets include
an appropriate margin of safety while still maintaining total emissions
below the attainment level.
    Based on our review of the SIP and the new budgets provided, EPA
has determined that the SIP will continue to meet the requirements if
the revised motor vehicle emissions inventories are

replaced with MOVES2010a inventories.

c. Applicability of MOBILE6.2-based Budgets

    Upon the effective date of the approval of the revised budgets, the
state's existing MOBILE6.2-based budgets for these areas will no longer
be applicable for transportation conformity purposes.

V. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is approving the submitted onroad mobile source emissions
inventories and the submitted budgets for the Dayton-Springfield
(submitted February 11, 2013) and Toledo (submitted April 18, 2013),
and the Ohio portions of the Parkersburg-Marietta (submitted April 26,
2013) and Steubenville-Weirton (submitted March 15, 2013), West
Virginia-Ohio 1997 ozone maintenance plans. We are publishing this
action without prior proposal because we view this as a
noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse comments. However,
in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, we
are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to
approve the state plan if relevant adverse written comments are filed.
This rule will be effective December 23, 2013 without further notice
unless we receive relevant adverse written comments by November 25,
2013. If we receive such comments, we will withdraw this action before
the effective date by publishing a subsequent document that will
withdraw the final action. All public comments received will then be
addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed action. EPA
will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in
commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that
if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section
of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of
the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are
not the subject of an adverse comment. If we do not receive any
comments, this action will be effective December 23, 2013.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, 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);
     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, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not 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 December 23, 2013. 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,
Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: September 19, 2013.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    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.

0
2. Section 52.1885 is amended by adding paragraphs (ff)(17), (18),
(19), and (20) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1885  Control strategy: Ozone.

* * * * *
    (ff) * * *
    (17) Approval--On February 11, 2013, Ohio submitted a request to
revise the approved MOBILE6.2 onroad mobile source emissions
inventories and motor vehicle emission budgets (budgets) in the 1997 8-
hour ozone maintenance

plan for the Dayton-Springfield, Ohio area. The inventories and budgets
are being revised with inventories and budgets developed with the
MOVES2010a model. The 2005 budgets for the Dayton-Springfield, Ohio
area are 53.37 tons per day (tpd) VOC and 84.66 tpd NOX. The
2018 budgets for the Dayton-Springfield, Ohio area are 22.35 tpd VOC
and 32.47 tpd NOX.
    (18) Approval--On March 15, 2013, Ohio submitted a request to
revise the approved MOBILE6.2 onroad mobile source emissions
inventories and motor vehicle emission budgets (budgets) in the 1997 8-
hour ozone maintenance plan for the Ohio portion of the Steubenville-
Weirton, West Virginia-Ohio area. The inventories and budgets are being
revised with inventories and budgets developed with the MOVES2010a
model. The 2009 budgets for the Ohio portion of the Steubenville-
Weirton, West Virginia-Ohio area are 4.83 tons per day (tpd) VOC and
5.91 tpd NOX. The 2018 budgets for the Ohio portion of the
Steubenville-Weirton, West Virginia-Ohio area are 2.14 tpd VOC and 2.43
tpd NOX.
    (19) Approval--On April 18, 2013, Ohio submitted a request to
revise the approved MOBILE6.2 onroad inventories and motor vehicle
emission budgets (budgets) in the 1997 8-hour ozone maintenance plan
for the Toledo, Ohio area. The inventories and budgets are being
revised with budgets developed with the MOVES2010a model. The 2009
budgets for the Toledo, Ohio area are 21.61 tons per day (tpd) VOC and
46.78 tpd NOX. The 2018 budgets for the Toledo, Ohio area
are 9.36 tpd VOC and 17.64 tpd NOX.
    (20) Approval--On April 26, 2013, Ohio submitted a request to
revise the approved MOBILE6.2 onroad mobile source emissions
inventories and motor vehicle emission budgets (budgets) in the 1997 8-
hour ozone maintenance plan for the Ohio portion of the Parkersburg-
Marietta, West Virginia-Ohio area. The inventories and budgets are
being revised with inventories and budgets developed with the
MOVES2010a model. The 2009 budgets for the Ohio portion of the
Parkersburg-Marietta, West Virginia-Ohio area are 4.15 tons per day
(tpd) VOC and 7.33 tpd NOX. The 2018 budgets for the Ohio
portion of the Parkersburg-Marietta, West Virginia-Ohio area are 1.93
tpd VOC and 3.25 tpd NOX.
* * * * *

[FR Doc. 2013-24706 Filed 10-23-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 68 (Thursday, April 9, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19113-19114]
[FR Doc No: 2015-08115]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

[Docket No. PHMSA-2014-0014]

Pipeline Safety: Public Workshop on Pipeline Safety Management
Systems

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice is announcing a one-day public workshop to discuss
the recent Pipeline Safety Management Systems (SMS) national consensus
standard. The meeting will include participation from all major
pipeline sectors, state and Federal regulators, and public safety
advocates. This workshop will detail the development process of the SMS
standard. The workshop will also emphasize the core elements of the
standard including: Leadership and management commitment; risk
management; emergency preparedness and response; competence awareness
and training; management review and continuous commitment, and the
critical role of safety culture.

DATES: The public workshop will held on Wednesday, April 22, 2015, from
8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. EST. Written comments must be received by June
8, 2015.

ADDRESSES: The workshop will be held at the Westin Galleria, 5060 West
Alabama Street, Houston, TX 77056. Hotel reservations can be made under
the room block ``PHMSA--Pipeline Safety Management System Workshop/''.
    The meeting agenda and any additional information will be published
on the PHMSA home page Web site at (http://www.phmsa.dot.gov/pipeline),
and on the PHMSA meeting page Web site https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/meetings/MtgHome.mtg?mtg=102.
    Registration: Members of the public may attend this free workshop.
To help assure that adequate space is provided, all attendees should
register for the workshop in advance at https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/meetings/MtgHome.mtg?mtg=102.
    Comments: Members of the public may also submit written comments
either before or after the workshop. Comments should reference Docket
No. PHMSA-2014-0014. Comments may be submitted in the following ways:
     E-Gov Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. This site
allows the public to enter comments on any Federal Register notice
issued by any agency. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
     Mail: Docket Management System, U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590.
    Hand Delivery: DOT Docket Management System, Room W12-140, on the
ground floor of the West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE.
Washington, DC between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Identify the docket number at the beginning of your
comments. If you submit your comments by mail, submit two copies. If
you wish to receive confirmation that PHMSA has received your comments,
include a self-addressed stamped postcard. Internet users may submit
comments at http://www.regulations.gov.

    Note: Comments will be posted without changes or edits to http://www.regulations.gov including any personal information provided.
Please see the Privacy Act Statement heading below for additional
information.

Privacy Act Statement

    Anyone may search the electronic form of all comments received for
any of our dockets. You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement
in the Federal Register published April 11, 2000, (65 FR 19476).

Information on Services for Individuals With Disabilities

    For information on facilities or services for individuals with
disabilities, or to request special assistance at the meeting, please
contact Nancy White, Office of Pipeline Safety, at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Nancy White, Office of Pipeline
Safety, at<PHONE_NUMBER> or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>regarding
the subject matter of this notice.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The details on this meeting, including the
location, times and agenda items, will be available on the meeting page
(https://primis.phmsa.dot.gov/meetings/MtgHome.mtg?mtg=102) as they
become available. Please note that the public

workshop will be webcast. Attendees, both in person and by webcast, are
strongly encouraged to register to help ensure accommodations are
adequate.
    Presentations will be available online at the meeting page and also
be posted in the E-Gov Web site: http://www.regulations.gov, at docket
number PHMSA-2014-0014 within 30 days following the meeting.

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. Chapter 601 and 49 CFR 1.97.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 3, 2015.
Jeffrey D. Wiese,
Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety.
[FR Doc. 2015-08115 Filed 4-8-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


[Federal Register: October 2, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 190)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 56025-56027]
[DOCID:fr02oc07-12]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. CGD08-07-023]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Milhomme Bayou, Stephensville,
LA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to change the regulation governing
the operation of the Stephensville Bridge across Milhomme Bayou, mile
12.2, at Stephensville, St. Martin Parish, Louisiana. Currently the
bridge opens on signal, but due to the minimal waterway traffic, the
bridge owner requested this change. The proposed rule will require the
draw of the bridge to open on signal if at least one hour of advance
notice is given. During the advance notice period, the draw shall open
on less than one hour notice for an emergency, and shall open on demand
should a temporary surge in waterway traffic occur.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before December 3, 2007.

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander
(dpb), Eighth Coast Guard District, 500 Poydras Street, New Orleans,
Louisiana 70130-3310. The Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District,
Bridge Administration Branch maintains the public docket for this
rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as well as
documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket,
will become part of this docket and will be available for inspection or
copying at the Bridge Administration office between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bart Marcules, Bridge Administration
Branch, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related material. If you do so, please include your name
and address, identify the docket number for this rulemaking [CGD08-07-
023], indicate the specific section of this document to which each
comment applies, and give the reason for each comment. Please submit
all comments and related material in an unbound format, no larger than
8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for copying. If you would like to know
they reached us, 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.

Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. You may submit a
request for a meeting by writing to Commander, Eighth Coast Guard
District, Bridge Administration Branch 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

    St. Martin Parish has requested that the operating regulation on
the Stephensville Bridge be changed in order to operate the bridge more
efficiently. The Stephensville Bridge locate on Milhomme Bayou at mile
12.2 in Stephensville, St. Martin Parish, Louisiana has a vertical
clearance of 5.8 feet above mean high water, elevation 3.5 feet Mean
Sea Level (MSL) in the closed position and unlimited in the open
position. The Stephensville Bridge opens on signal as required by 33
CFR 117.5, and this operating schedule has been in effect since 2002
when the current bridge replaced an existing bridge in the area. The
previous bridge's operating schedule was, ``shall open on signal;
except that, from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. the draw shall open on signal if at
least two hours notice is given. During the advance notice period, the
draw shall open on less than two hours notice for an emergency and
shall open on demand should a temporary surge in waterway traffic
occur.''
    Since the completion of the current bridge, the waterway traffic
has been minimal and during the past twelve months an average of 5
boats per day have requested an opening. Most of the boats requesting
openings are commercial vessels consisting of tugboats with barges and
shrimp trawlers that routinely transit this waterway and are able to
give advance notice.
    Concurrent with the publication of the Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking, a Test Deviation [CGD08-07-022], has been issued to allow
St. Martin Parish to test the proposed schedule and to obtain data and
public comments. The test period will be in effect during the entire
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking comment period. The Coast Guard will
review the logs of the drawbridge and evaluate public comments from
this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and the above referenced Temporary
Deviation to determine if a permanent special drawbridge operating
regulation is warranted.
    The Test Deviation allows the draw of the Stephensville Bridge to
open on signal if at least one hour of advance notice is given. During
the advance notice period, the draw shall open on less than one hour
notice for an emergency and shall open on demand should a temporary
surge in waterway traffic occur.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The proposed rule change to 33 CFR part 117 would require that a
one hour advance notice be given for St. Martin parish to open the
Stephensville Bridge. Presently and historically the waterway has
minimal waterway traffic and the bridge owner could use the tenders
more efficiently if at least one hour notice is required. During
emergencies, the bridge owner will open the bridge as soon as possible
and open on demand when a surge in waterway traffic occurs.

Regulatory Evaluation

    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 ``significant''
under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of
Homeland Security.
    We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so
minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary.
    A special regulation existed on the replaced bridge and the Coast
Guard did not receive complaints regarding the drawbridge operating
schedule during the many years that bridge was operated under a special
regulation. The current and historical waterway traffic is very minimal
with an average of 5 signals to open a day and most signals come from
commercial vessels able to schedule an opening. The bridge is also only
requiring a one hour advance notice,

and will open as soon as possible for emergencies. Also the bridge will
open on demand should a temporary surge in waterway traffic occur.

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 proposed rule would affect a limited
number of small entities. These entities include operators of tug boats
and trawlers using the waterway. This proposed rule will have no impact
on any small entities because they are able to give notice prior to
transiting through this bridge and most vessel operators that require
an opening are currently providing advance notice.
    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
rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please contact the Eighth Coast Guard District
Bridge Administration Branch at the address above. The Coast Guard will
not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about
this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

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 will 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 affect 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.

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 Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive
5100.1, 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 that there are no factors in this
case that would limit the use of a categorical exclusion under section
2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, we believe that this rule should
be categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, (32)(e), of the
Instruction, from further environmental documentation. Under figure 2-
1, paragraph (32)(e), an ``Environmental Analysis Check List'' or
``Categorical Exclusion Determination'' is not required for this rule.
Comments on this section will be considered before we make the final
decision on whether

to categorically exclude this rule from further environmental review.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117 Bridges.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows:

PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS

    1. The authority citation for part 117 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g); Department of
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

    2. Section 117.481 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  117.481  Milhomme Bayou

    The draw of the Stephensville Bridge, mile 12.2 (Landside Route) at
Stephensville, LA shall open on signal if at least one hour of advance
notice is given. During the advance notice period, the draw shall open
on less than one hour notice for an emergency, and shall open on demand
should a temporary surge in waterway traffic occur.

    Dated: September 21, 2007.
Joel R. Whitehead,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E7-19422 Filed 10-1-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 29 (Tuesday, February 12, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9972-9973]
[FR Doc No: 2013-03185]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-68847; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2013-016]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Filing and Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change
for the Purpose of Amending Rule 7014(g)

February 6, 2013.
    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 January 30, 2013, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'' or
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and
II below, which Items have been prepared by the Exchange. The
Commission is publishing this notice to solicit comments on the
proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7014(g). The text of the
proposed rule change is available at http://nasdaq.cchwallstreet.com,
at the Exchange's principal office, and at the Commission's Public
Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    NASDAQ is amending Rule 7014(g), which establishes a pricing
incentive program for members designated as Qualified Market Makers
(``QMM'') under the terms of the rule. Under the QMM program, which was
adopted in November 2012 on a six-month pilot basis,\3\ a member may be
designated as a QMM with respect to one or more of its MPIDs if:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Securities Exchange Act Release No. 68209 (November 9,
2012), 77 FR 69519 (November 19, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     The member is not assessed any ``Excess Order Fee'' under
Rule 7018 during the month; \4\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Rule 7018(m). NASDAQ recently introduced an Excess Order
Fee, aimed at reducing inefficient order entry practices of certain
market participants that place excessive burdens on the systems of
NASDAQ and its members and that may negatively impact the usefulness
and life cycle cost of market data. In general, the determination of
whether to impose the fee on a particular MPID is made by
calculating the ratio between (i) entered orders, weighted by the
distance of the order from the NBBO, and (ii) orders that execute in
whole or in part. The fee is imposed on MPIDs that have an ``Order
Entry Ratio'' of more than 100.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Through such MPID the member quotes at the NBBO at least
25% of the time during regular market hours \5\ in an average of at
least 1,000 securities during the month.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Defined as 9:30 a.m. through 4:00 p.m., or such shorter
period as may be designated by NASDAQ on a day when the securities
markets close early (such as the day after Thanksgiving).
    \6\ A member MPID is considered to be quoting at the NBBO if it
has a displayed order at either the national best bid or the
national best offer or both the national best bid and offer. On a
daily basis, NASDAQ will determine the number of securities in which
the member satisfied the 25% NBBO requirement. To qualify for QMM
designation, the MPID must meet the requirement for an average of
1,000 securities per day over the course of the month. Thus, if a
member MPID satisfied the 25% NBBO requirement in 900 securities for
half the days in the month, and satisfied the requirement for 1,100
securities for the other days in the month, it would meet the
requirement for an average of 1,000 securities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed rule change addresses a circumstance in which a member
seeking to be designated as a QMM terminates the use of one MPID and
simultaneously commences use of another MPID during the course of a
month. In that circumstance, NASDAQ believes that it is reasonable to
allow the member to aggregate activity on the two MPIDs, essentially
treating them like a single MPID, for the purpose of determining
eligibility. By codifying this interpretation, the proposed rule change
will enhance the transparency of the rule.
2. Statutory Basis
    NASDAQ believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with
the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\7\ in general, and with Section
6(b)(5) of the Act \8\ in particular, in that the proposal is designed
to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation and
coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing, settling,
processing information with respect to, and facilitating transactions
in securities, 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. NASDAQ believes that the
adoption of a clear policy with respect to the interpretation of Rule
7014(g) will promote members' understanding of the parameters of the
rule and the efficiency of its administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    NASDAQ further believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Sections 6(b)(4) and (b)(5) of the Act,\9\ in that it is
consistent with an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and
other charges among members and issuers and other persons using any
facility or system which NASDAQ operates or controls and is not
unreasonably discriminatory. The addition of rule language stipulating
the permissibility of aggregating two MPIDs when use of one is
terminated during the course of the month establishes a standard that
is clear and easy to administer. The provision is equitable and not
unreasonably discriminatory because all members seeking to terminate
the use of an MPID during the course of a month are subject to the same
commonsense parameters, which do not unfairly penalize a member for
transitioning order entry activity from one MPID to another, and
because the standard is consistent with the overall goal of the QMM
program to encourage members to improve market quality by quoting
extensively at or near the inside.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    NASDAQ does not believe that the proposed rule change will result
in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as amended. The change will
adopt a clear and commonsense standard for members that wish to qualify
for the QMM program but that terminate the use of one MPID and commence
the use of another MPID during the course of the month. NASDAQ believes
that in fact this change will promote competition and further the pro-
competitive goals of encouraging members to improve market quality by
quoting extensively at or near the inside, as it insures that a member
that transitions MPIDs is not barred from participating in the program
during the month of transition. Moreover, NASDAQ notes that because

the market for order execution and routing is extremely competitive,
members may readily opt to disfavor NASDAQ's execution services if they
believe that alternatives offer them better value. Accordingly, NASDAQ
does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the ability of
members or competing order execution venues to maintain their
competitive standing in the financial markets.

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

    Written comments were neither solicited nor received.

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \10\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\11\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) Significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act \12\ and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \12\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \13\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange has asked the Commission to waive the 30-day operative
delay.\14\ The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative
delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest because it will allow a member that terminates one MPID and
simultaneously commences use of another MPID during the course of a
month to aggregate activity on the two MPIDs to determine eligibility
for the QMM program during the month of transition without delay.
Accordingly, the Commission designates the proposal operative upon
filing.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii).
    \15\ For purposes only of accelerating the 30-day operative
delay, the Commission has considered the proposed rule change's
impact on efficiency, competition, and capital formation. 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission
takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to
determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

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

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NASDAQ-2013-016 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2013-016. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet 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
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 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 available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NASDAQ-2013-016 and should
be submitted on or before March 5, 2013.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-03185 Filed 2-11-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: September 7, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 172)]
[Notices]
[Page 54339-54340]
[DOCID:fr07se10-27]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0887; FRL-9196-9; EPA ICR No. 0616.10; OMB Control No.
2070-0052]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; Compliance Requirement for Child-
Resistant Packaging

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)(44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.), this document announces that an Information Collection
Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval. This is a request to renew an existing
approved collection. The ICR, which is abstracted below, describes the
nature of the information collection and its estimated burden and cost.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before October 7,
2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPP-
2009-0887, to (1) EPA online using http://www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental
Protection Agency, OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P), Office of
Pesticide Programs (OPP), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC
20460, and (2) OMB by mail to: Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer
for EPA, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Drewes, Field and External
Affairs Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, (7506P), Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On Wednesday, March 3, 2010 (75 FR 9594), EPA sought comments
on this ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any
additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB
within 30 days of this notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0887, which is available for online viewing at
http://www.regulations.gov, or in person viewing at the OPP Regulatory
Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South Building), 2777 S.
Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. This docket facility is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the OPP Regulatory Public Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at http://
www.regulations.gov, to submit or view public comments, access the
index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the docket

that are available electronically. Once in the system, select ``docket
search,'' then key in the docket ID number identified above. Please
note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted
electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing
at http://www.regulations.gov as EPA receives them and without change,
unless the comment contains copyrighted material, confidential business
information (CBI), or other information whose public disclosure is
restricted by statute. For further information about the electronic
docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov.
    Title: Compliance Requirement for Child-Resistant Packaging.
    ICR numbers: EPA ICR No. 0616.10, OMB Control No. 2070-0052.
    ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on November 30, 2010.
Under OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor
the collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB.
An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information, unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations
in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when
approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, are displayed either by
publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such
as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The
display of OMB control numbers in certain EPA regulations is
consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: This ICR is designed to provide the EPA with assurances
that the packaging of pesticide products sold and distributed to the
general public in the United States meets standards set forth by the
Agency pursuant to the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act (FIFRA). Unless a pesticide product qualifies for an exemption, if
the product meets certain criteria regarding toxicity and use, it must
be sold and distributed in child-resistant packaging. Section 25(c)(3)
of FIFRA authorizes EPA to establish standards for packaging of
pesticide products and pesticidal devices to protect children and
adults from serious illness or injury resulting from accidental
ingestion or contact. The law requires that these standards are
designed to be consistent with those under the Poison Prevention
Packaging Act, administered by the Consumer Product Safety Commission
(CPSC). Pesticide registrants must certify to the Agency that the
packaging or device meets these standards. EPA reviews a registrant's
child-resistant packaging (CRP) certification to determine if there are
human safety/health risk concerns. Exemption requests are reviewed to
ascertain if there is a health risk, and if CRP is technically
feasible, practicable, and appropriate.
    Responses to this collection of information are mandatory under
authority of 40 CFR part 157.34. Although submission of confidential
information is not required as a part of this information collection,
there has been at least one instance where confidential data have been
submitted voluntarily as supporting material for an exemption request
from CRP compliance requirements. When any trade secret or Confidential
Business Information (CBI) is provided to EPA, such information is
protected from disclosure under section 10 of FIFRA. Data submitted to
EPA is handled strictly in accordance with the provisions of the FIFRA
Confidential Business Information Manual.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 4.2
hours per response. The ICR provides a detailed explanation of this
estimate, which is only briefly summarized here, and is available in
the public docket.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: All registrants of pesticide
products meeting the use criteria which trigger Child-Resistant
Packaging (CRP) requirements.
    Estimated Number of Responses: 1,165.
    Frequency of Response: On Occasion.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 4,893.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $261,237.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is an increase of 1,420 hours in
the total estimated burden currently identified in the OMB Inventory of
Approved ICR Burdens. This increase reflects EPA's expectation of an
increase in the number of responses driven by an influx of CRP
certifications associated with the implementation of the registration
review program. In addition, the exclusive use period for certain
pesticide chemicals is expiring. Registrants with products using these
chemicals will now be required to provide their own CRP test data,
which will have to be reviewed for human safety/health risk concerns.
The total burden hours per response for compliance with the CRP
requirements decreased from 4.94 hours to 4.20 hours. The average
burden estimate for CRP exemptions has increased. However, the
distribution of responses has changed, resulting in a net shift from
more burdensome to less burdensome type responses. This change is an
adjustment.

    Dated: August 28, 2010.
John Moses,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2010-22196 Filed 9-3-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


OMB Control Number 2070-0032; EPA ICR Number 0596.10

ICR ATTACHMENT A

FIFRA Section 18

(7 USC 136p)

SEC. 18. [7 U.S.C. 136p]  EXEMPTION OF FEDERAL AND STATE AGENCIES.

	The Administrator may, at the Administrator’s discretion, exempt any
Federal or State agency from any provision of this Act if the
Administrator determines that emergency conditions exist which require
such exemption. The Administrator, in determining whether or not such
emergency conditions exist, shall consult with the Secretary of
Agriculture and the Governor of any State concerned if they request such
determination.


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 240 (Friday, December 13, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 68197]
[FR Doc No: 2019-26838]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-87688; File No. SR-CboeBZX-2019-041]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc.; Notice of
Withdrawal of a Proposed Rule Change To Amend the Fee Schedule Assessed
on Members To Establish a Monthly Trading Rights Fee

December 9, 2019.
    On May 2, 2019, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (``BZX'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ a
proposed rule change to amend the BZX Fee Schedule to establish a
monthly Trading Rights Fee to be assessed on Members.\3\ The proposed
rule change was immediately effective upon filing with the Commission
pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act.\4\ The proposed rule change
was published for comment in the Federal Register on May 16, 2019.\5\
On June 28, 2019, the Commission temporarily suspended the proposed
rule change and instituted proceedings to determine whether to approve
or disapprove the proposed rule change.\6\ In response to the BZX OIP,
the Commission received three comment letters, including a response
letter from the Exchange.\7\ On November 12, 2019, pursuant to Section
19(b)(2) of the Act,\8\ the Commission designated a longer period
within which to approve or disapprove the proposed rule change.\9\ On
November 22, 2019, the Exchange withdrew the proposed rule change (SR-
CboeBZX-2019-041).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ The Commission notes that BZX initially filed the proposed
rule change on April 29, 2019 (SR-CboeBZX-2019-036). On May 2, 2019,
BZX withdrew that filing and submitted the present proposal (SR-
CboeBZX-2019-041).
    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 85840 (May 10,
2019), 84 FR 22190.
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 86233, 84 FR 32230
(July 05, 2019) (``BZX OIP'').
    \7\ See Letters from Theodore R. Lazo, Managing Director and
Associate General Counsel, SIFMA, dated July 26, 2019; Tyler
Gellasch, Executive Director, Healthy Markets, dated July 26, 2019;
and Rebecca Tenuta, Counsel, Cboe Global Markets, dated August 9,
2019.
    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \9\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 87500, 84 FR 63700
(November 18, 2019). The Commission designated January 11, 2020, as
the date by which the Commission would approve or disapprove the
proposed rule change.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-26838 Filed 12-12-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P