[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 6 (Tuesday, January 10, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 2868-2870]
[FR Doc No: 2017-00186]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2016-8833; Airspace Docket No. 16-ACE-8]

Amendment of Class E Airspace for the Following Iowa Towns;
Algona, IA; Ankeny, IA; Atlantic, IA; Belle Plane, IA; Creston, IA;
Estherville, IA; Grinnell, IA; Guthrie Center, IA; and Oelwein, IA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action modifies Class E surface area at Ankeny Regional
Airport, Ankeny, IA; and Class E airspace extending upward from 700
feet above the surface at Algona Municipal Airport, Algona, IA; Ankeny
Regional Airport; Atlantic Municipal Airport, Atlantic, IA; Belle
Plaine Municipal Airport, Belle Plaine, IA; Creston Municipal Airport,
Creston, IA; Estherville Municipal Airport, Estherville, IA; Grinnell
Regional Airport, Grinnell, IA; Guthrie County Regional Airport,
Guthrie Center, IA; and Oelwein Municipal Airport, Oelwein, IA.
Decommissioning of non-directional radio beacons (NDB), cancellation of
NDB approaches, and implementation of area navigation (RNAV) procedures
have made this action necessary for the safety and management of
Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations at these airports.
Additionally, the geographic coordinates for Algona Municipal Airport,
Atlantic Municipal Airport, and Grinnell Regional Airport are being
adjusted to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database. The name of
Belle Plaine, IA, is also being adjusted to correct a misspelling in
the legal description.

DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, April 27, 2017. The Director of the Federal
Register approves this incorporation by reference action under Title 1,
Code of Federal Regulations, part 51, subject to the annual revision of
FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient
use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority
as it amends Class E surface area at Ankeny Regional Airport, Ankeny,
IA; and Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the
surface at Algona Municipal Airport, Algona, IA; Ankeny Regional
Airport; Atlantic Municipal Airport, Atlantic, IA; Belle Plaine
Municipal Airport, Belle Plaine, IA; Creston Municipal Airport,
Creston, IA; Estherville Municipal Airport, Estherville, IA; Grinnell
Regional Airport, Grinnell, IA; Guthrie County Regional Airport,
Guthrie Center, IA; and Oelwein Municipal Airport, Oelwein, IA.

History

    On September 23, 2016, the FAA published in the Federal Register a
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), (81 FR 65583) Docket No. FAA-
2016-8833, to amend Class E surface area at

Ankeny Regional Airport, Ankeny, IA; and Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface at Algona Municipal Airport,
Algona, IA; Ankeny Regional Airport; Atlantic Municipal Airport,
Atlantic, IA; Belle Plaine Municipal Airport, Belle Plaine, IA; Creston
Municipal Airport, Creston, IA; Estherville Municipal Airport,
Estherville, IA; Grinnell Regional Airport, Grinnell, IA; Guthrie
County Regional Airport, Guthrie Center, IA; and Oelwein Municipal
Airport, Oelwein, IA. Interested parties were invited to participate in
this rulemaking effort by submitting written comments on the proposal
to the FAA. No comments were received.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6002 and
6005, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11A, dated August 3, 2016, and
effective September 15, 2016, which is incorporated by reference in 14
CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document
will be published subsequently in the Order.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.11A, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and effective September 15,
2016. FAA Order 7400.11A is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11A lists Class A,
B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    This amendment to Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 modifies:
    Class E surface area airspace within a 4.2-mile radius (increased
from the 4-mile radius) of Ankeny Regional Airport, Ankeny, IA;
    Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface:
    By removing the 10-mile extension northwest of Algona Municipal
Airport, Algona, IA, and updating the geographic coordinates of the
airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database;
    Within a 6.7-mile radius (reduced from the previous 7.1-mile
radius) of Ankeny Regional Airport, Ankeny, IA, and removing the
extensions 9.3 miles northeast and 11.1 miles north of the airport;
    Within a 7.2-mile radius (increased from the 6.8-mile radius) of
Atlantic Municipal Airport, Atlantic, IA, with an extension to the
northeast from the 7.2-mile radius to 9.2 miles, and updating the
geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's
aeronautical database;
    Within a 6.5-mile radius (reduced from the previous 7.5-mile
radius) of Belle Plaine Municipal Airport, Belle Plaine, IA, and
correcting city designation from Belle Plane to Belle Plaine;
    By removing the 11-mile extension south of Creston Municipal
Airport, Creston, IA;
    By removing the 7.4-mile extensions south and northwest of
Estherville Municipal Airport, Estherville, IA;
    Within a 6.5-mile radius (reduced from the previous 7.6-mile
radius) of Grinnell Regional Airport, Grinnell, IA, and updating the
geographical coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's
aeronautical database;
    By adding an extension to the north from the 6.4-mile radius to 9.8
miles of Guthrie County Regional Airport, Guthrie Center, IA;
    And within a 6.4-mile radius (reduced from the previous 7.3-mile
radius) of Oelwein Municipal Airport, Oelwein, IA.
    Airspace reconfiguration is necessary due to the decommissioning of
the Mapleton NDB, cancellation of NDB approaches, and implementation of
RNAV procedures at the airport and for the safety and management of the
standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at these
airports.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. 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 only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

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

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).

Adoption of the Amendment

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

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

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

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

Sec.  71.1   [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of FAA Order 7400.11A,
Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 3, 2016, and
effective September 15, 2016, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6002 Class E Airspace Designated as Surface Areas.

* * * * *

ACE IA E2 Ankeny, IA [Amended]

Ankeny Regional Airport, IA
    (Lat. 41[deg]41'29'' N., long. 93[deg]33'59'' W.)

    Within a 4.2-mile radius of Ankeny Regional Airport, excluding
that portion within the Des Moines Class C airspace area.
* * * * *

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

* * * * *

ACE IA E5 Algona, IA [Amended]

Algona Municipal Airport, IA
    (Lat. 43[deg]04'41'' N., long. 94[deg]16'19'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.4-mile radius of Algona Municipal Airport.
* * * * *

ACE IA E5 Ankeny, IA [Amended]

Ankeny Regional Airport, IA
    (Lat.41[deg]41'29'' N., long. 93[deg]33'59'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.7-mile radius of Ankeny Regional Airport, excluding that
portion within the Des Moines Class C airspace area.

ACE IA E5 Atlantic, IA [Amended]

Atlantic Municipal Airport, IA

    (Lat. 41[deg]24'14'' N., long. 95[deg]02'56'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 7.2-mile radius of Atlantic Municipal Airport and within
1.8 miles each side of the 022[deg] bearing from the airport
extending from the 7.2-mile radius to 9.2 miles northeast of the
airport.
* * * * *

ACE IA E5 Belle Plaine, IA [Amended]

Belle Plaine Municipal Airport, IA
    (Lat. 41[deg]52'44'' N., long. 92[deg]17'04'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.5-mile radius of Belle Plaine Municipal Airport,
excluding that portion which overlies the Cedar Rapids, IA, Class E
airspace area.
* * * * *

ACE IA E5 Creston, IA [Amended]

Creston Municipal Airport, IA
    (Lat. 41[deg]01'17'' N., long. 94[deg]21'48'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.5-mile radius of Creston Municipal Airport.
* * * * *

ACE IA E5 Estherville, IA [Amended]

Estherville Municipal Airport, LA
    (Lat. 43[deg]24'27'' N long. 94[deg]44'47'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.5-mile radius of Estherville Municipal Airport.
* * * * *

ACE IA E5 Grinnell, IA [Amended]

Grinnell Regional Airport, IA
    (Lat. 41[deg]42'36'' N., long. 92[deg]44'10'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.5-mile radius of Grinnell Regional Airport.

ACE IA E5 Guthrie Center, IA [Amended]

Guthrie County Regional Airport, IA
    (Lat. 41[deg]41'13'' N., long. 93[deg]26'06'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.4-mile radius of the Guthrie County Regional Airport, and
within 2 miles each side of the 360[deg] bearing from the airport
extending from the 6.4-mile radius to 9.8 miles north of the
airport.
* * * * *

ACE IA E5 Oelwein, IA [Amended]

Oelwein Municipal Airport, IA
    (Lat. 42[deg]40'51'' N., long. 91[deg]58'28'' W.)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.4-mile radius of Oelwein Municipal Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on December 28, 2016.
Thomas L. Lattimer,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2017-00186 Filed 1-9-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 249 (Friday, December 28, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76479-76482]
[FR Doc No: 2012-31277]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0574; FRL-9356-8]

FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel; Notice of Public Meeting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: There will be a 3-day meeting of the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act Scientific Advisory Panel (FIFRA SAP) to
consider and review Scientific Issues Concerning the Draft Product
Performance Data Needs Assessment for Products Claiming Efficacy
Against Invertebrate Pests.

DATES: The meeting will be held on March 19-21, 2013, from
approximately 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
    Comments. The Agency encourages that written comments be submitted
by March 5, 2013, and requests for oral comments be submitted by March
12, 2013. However, written comments and requests to make oral comments
may be submitted until the date of the meeting, but anyone submitting
written comments after March 5, 2013, should contact the Designated
Federal Official (DFO) listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
For additional instructions, see Unit I.C. of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION.
    Nominations. Nominations of candidates to serve as ad hoc members
of FIFRA SAP for this meeting should be provided on or before January
14, 2013.

    Webcast. This meeting may be webcast. Please refer to the FIFRA
SAP's Web site, http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap for information on how
to access the webcast. Please note that the webcast is a supplementary
public process provided only for convenience. If difficulties arise
resulting in webcasting outages, the meeting will continue as planned.
    Special accommodations. For information on access or services for
individuals with disabilities, and to request accommodation of a
disability, please contact the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT at least 10 days prior to the meeting to give EPA as much time
as possible to process your request.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Environmental Protection
Agency, Conference Center, Lobby Level, One Potomac Yard (South Bldg.),
2777 S. Crystal Dr., Arlington, VA 22202.
    Comments. Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0574 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 Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
     Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental Protection Agency Docket
Center (EPA/DC), Mail Code: (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.htm. Additional
instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more
information about dockets generally, is available at http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Nominations, requests to present oral comments, and requests for
special accommodations. Submit nominations to serve as ad hoc members
of FIFRA SAP, requests for special seating accommodations, or requests
to present oral comments to the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph E. Bailey, DFO, Office of
Science Coordination and Policy (7201M), Environmental Protection
Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number;<PHONE_NUMBER>; email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general. This action may,
however, be of interest to persons who are or may be required to
conduct testing of chemical substances under the Federal Food, Drug,
and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), FIFRA, and the Food Quality Protection Act of
1996 (FQPA). Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency
has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be
affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the DFO
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    When submitting comments, remember to:
    1. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    2. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to specific
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.
    4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline
identified.

 C. How may I participate in this meeting?

    You may participate in this meeting by following the instructions
in this unit. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, it is imperative that
you identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0574 in the subject line
on the first page of your request.
    1. Written comments. The Agency encourages that written comments be
submitted, using the instructions in ADDRESSES, no later than March 5,
2013, to provide FIFRA SAP the time necessary to consider and review
the written comments. Written comments are accepted until the date of
the meeting, but anyone submitting written comments after March 5,
2013, should contact the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT. Anyone submitting written comments at the meeting should bring
30 copies for distribution to FIFRA SAP.
    2. Oral comments. The Agency encourages that each individual or
group wishing to make brief oral comments to FIFRA SAP submit their
request to the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT no
later than March 12, 2013, in order to be included on the meeting
agenda. Requests to present oral comments will be accepted until the
date of the meeting and, to the extent that time permits, the Chair of
FIFRA SAP may permit the presentation of oral comments at the meeting
by interested persons who have not previously requested time. The
request should identify the name of the individual making the
presentation, the organization (if any) the individual will represent,
and any requirements for audiovisual equipment (e.g., overhead
projector, 35 mm projector, chalkboard). Oral comments before FIFRA SAP
are limited to approximately 5 minutes unless prior arrangements have
been made. In addition, each speaker should bring 30 copies of his or
her comments and presentation slides for distribution to the FIFRA SAP
at the meeting.
    3. Seating at the meeting. Seating at the meeting will be open and
on a first-come basis.
    4. Request for nominations to serve as ad hoc members of FIFRA SAP
for this meeting. As part of a broader process for developing a pool of
candidates for each meeting, FIFRA SAP staff routinely solicits the
stakeholder community for nominations of prospective candidates for
service as ad hoc members of FIFRA SAP. Any interested person or
organization may nominate qualified individuals to be considered as
prospective candidates for a specific meeting. Individuals nominated
for this meeting should have expertise in one or more of the following
areas:
     Insecticide testing/bioassay design,
     Medical entomology and pest management,
     Veterinary entomology and pest management, and
     Urban entomology and pest management.
Nominees should be scientists who have sufficient professional
qualifications, including training and experience, to be capable of
providing expert comments on the scientific issues for this meeting.
Nominees should be identified by name,

occupation, position, address, and telephone number. Nominations should
be provided to the DFO listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT on
or before January 14, 2013. The Agency will consider all nominations of
prospective candidates for this meeting that are received on or before
this date. However, final selection of ad hoc members for this meeting
is a discretionary function of the Agency.
    The selection of scientists to serve on the FIFRA SAP is based on
the function of the panel and the expertise needed to address the
Agency's charge to the panel. No interested scientists shall be
ineligible to serve by reason of their membership on any other advisory
committee to a Federal department or agency or their employment by a
Federal department or agency except the EPA. Other factors considered
during the selection process include availability of the potential
panel member to fully participate in the panel's reviews, absence of
any conflicts of interest or appearance of lack of impartiality,
independence with respect to the matters under review, and lack of
bias. Although, financial conflicts of interest, the appearance of lack
of impartiality, lack of independence, and bias may result in
disqualification, the absence of such concerns does not assure that a
candidate will be selected to serve on the FIFRA SAP. Numerous
qualified candidates are identified for each panel. Therefore,
selection decisions involve carefully weighing a number of factors
including the candidates' areas of expertise and professional
qualifications and achieving an overall balance of different scientific
perspectives on the panel. In order to have the collective breadth of
experience needed to address the Agency's charge for this meeting, the
Agency anticipates selecting approximately 10 ad hoc scientists.
    FIFRA SAP members are subject to the provisions of 5 CFR part 2634,
Executive Branch Financial Disclosure, as supplemented by the EPA in 5
CFR part 6401. In anticipation of this requirement, prospective
candidates for service on the FIFRA SAP will be asked to submit
confidential financial information which shall fully disclose, among
other financial interests, the candidate's employment, stocks and
bonds, and where applicable, sources of research support. The EPA will
evaluate the candidates financial disclosure form to assess whether
there are financial conflicts of interest, appearance of a lack of
impartiality or any prior involvement with the development of the
documents under consideration (including previous scientific peer
review) before the candidate is considered further for service on the
FIFRA SAP. Those who are selected from the pool of prospective
candidates will be asked to attend the public meetings and to
participate in the discussion of key issues and assumptions at these
meetings. In addition, they will be asked to review and to help
finalize the meeting minutes. The list of FIFRA SAP members
participating at this meeting will be posted on the FIFRA SAP Web site
at http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap or may be obtained from the OPP
Regulatory Public Docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

II. Background

A. Purpose of the FIFRA SAP

    The FIFRA SAP serves as the primary scientific peer review
mechanism of EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention
(OCSPP) and is structured to provide scientific advice, information and
recommendations to the EPA Administrator on pesticides and pesticide-
related issues as to the impact of regulatory actions on health and the
environment. The FIFRA SAP is a Federal advisory committee established
in 1975 under FIFRA that operates in accordance with requirements of
the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The FIFRA SAP is composed of a
permanent panel consisting of seven members who are appointed by the
EPA Administrator from nominees provided by the National Institutes of
Health and the National Science Foundation. FIFRA, as amended by FQPA,
established a Science Review Board consisting of at least 60 scientists
who are available to the SAP on an ad hoc basis to assist in reviews
conducted by the SAP. As a peer review mechanism, the FIFRA SAP
provides comments, evaluations and recommendations to improve the
effectiveness and quality of analyses made by Agency scientists.
Members of the FIFRA SAP are scientists who have sufficient
professional qualifications, including training and experience, to
provide expert advice and recommendation to the Agency.

B. Public Meeting

    The FIFRA SAP will meet to consider scientific issues associated
with product performance data that may be needed for EPA to evaluate
the efficacy of pesticide products used to control invertebrate pests.
The SAP's recommendations will be considered as EPA develops the
proposed invertebrate product performance data requirements. Once EPA
codifies product performance data requirements, the regulations will
provide the regulated community and other interested parties a better
understanding of the data required to support registration of a product
claiming pesticidal activity against three categories of invertebrate
pests.
    Recent developments in vector-borne diseases, such as the spread of
the West Nile virus, outbreaks of dengue in Florida, and epidemic Rocky
Mountain spotted fever on Indian Lands, together with the re-emergence
of bed bugs in public housing and multifamily dwellings, have signaled
the need to assess more carefully the threat of invertebrate pests to
public health. At the same time, invasive wood-destroying insects such
as the Emerald Ash Borer or Asian long-horned beetle present
significant economic impacts to homes and native plant species. EPA-
registered insecticide products are an important part of pest
management programs and consumer efforts to accomplish pest control.
EPA is considering the product performance data needed to support the
registration of pesticide products claiming efficacy against
invertebrate pests of significant public health or economic importance.
The data being considered include a category of invertebrate pests
identified to be of significant public health importance (e.g., ticks,
mosquitoes, cockroaches). The other two categories are considered to be
of significant economic importance: Wood-destroying insects (e.g.,
termites), and invasive invertebrate species.
    In response to these recent developments, EPA is considering the
product performance data that may be needed for EPA to evaluate the
efficacy of pesticide products used to control invertebrate pests. The
FIFRA SAP will meet to consider certain scientific issues identified by
the Agency. The main topics for consideration by the FIFRA SAP are the
science criteria for: (1) Identifying the public health pests, wood-
destroying insects, and invasive species for which product performance
data are needed; (2) evaluating pest groupings and selection of
appropriate surrogate species for efficacy testing; (3) adequacy of the
performance standards being considered; (4) providing consistency in
product performance studies submitted to EPA; and(5) ensuring the
likelihood that EPA- registered products will perform as expected. The
Agency also believes that revision of these product performance data
requirements will improve the transparency of EPA practices to the
public and registrants.

C. FIFRA SAP Documents and Meeting Minutes

    EPA's background paper, related supporting materials, charge/
questions to the FIFRA SAP, the FIFRA SAP composition (i.e., members
and ad hoc members for this meeting), and the meeting agenda will be
available by mid-February. In addition, the Agency may provide
additional background documents as the materials become available. You
may obtain electronic copies of these documents, and certain other
related documents that might be available electronically, at http://www.regulations.gov and the FIFRA SAP homepage at http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap.
    The FIFRA SAP will prepare meeting minutes summarizing its
recommendations to the Agency approximately 90 days after the meeting.
The meeting minutes will be posted on the FIFRA SAP Web site or may be
obtained from the OPP Regulatory Public Docket at http://www.regulations.gov.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.

    Dated: August 1, 2012.
Frank Sanders,
Director, Office of Science Coordination and Policy.
[FR Doc. 2012-31277 Filed 12-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 17 (Wednesday, January 27, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 4588-4590]
[FR Doc No: 2016-01637]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2016-0014]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Transit Restrictions, Lower Mississippi River Mile
Marker 365.0--361.0

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
all waters of the Lower Mississippi River (LMR), extending the entire
width from mile 365.0 to mile 361.0. This safety zone is needed to
protect persons, property and flood control infrastructure from the
potential safety hazards associated with the wake from vessels underway
transiting this area. Deviation from the safety zone is prohibited
unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Lower
Mississippi River or a designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective without actual notice from January 27,
2016 until 11:59 p.m. on February 1, 2016. For the purposes of
enforcement, actual notice will be used from 12:01 a.m. on January 10,
2016 until January 27, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
[USCG-2016-0014]. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the
docket number in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email LT Tyrone L. Conner, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 901-521-
4825, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
E.O. Executive order
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Pub. L. Public Law
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code
COTP Captain of the Port
LMR Lower Mississippi River

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.''
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with
respect to this rule because immediate action is needed to protect
persons, property and flood control infrastructure from the potential
safety hazards associated with the wake from vessels underway
transiting this area. Completing the full NPRM process is impracticable
and contrary to the public interest because we must establish this
safety zone in response to increasing high water and possible flood and
high water operations taking place between January 10 and February 1,
2016. Completing the NPRM process would delay the additional safety
measures necessary to protect persons, property and flood control
infrastructure from the hazardous associated with the wake from vessels
underway.
    We are issuing this rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast
Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less than 30
days after publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective
date of this rule would be impracticable and contrary to the public
interest because we must establish this safety zone in response to
increasing high water and possible emergency operations taking place
between January 10 and February 1, 2016.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C.
1231.
    The Coast Guard received notification from the Vicksburg District,
Army Corps of Engineers that there is a high possibility that the
levees from mile 354.0 to mile 357.0, and at mile 365.0, including the
temporary flood structures in Vidalia, LA and the waterfront in
Natchez, MS will sustain damage when the Natchez gauge reaches 55 feet
and higher if immediate action isn't taken to reduce the effects of
normal traffic patterns during high water. Additionally, if the levee
is sufficiently weakened by resulting effects of high water during this
period it could fail. Loss of this section of the main line levee
system would be catastrophic to large sections of Louisiana. The COTP
Lower Mississippi River intends to establish a safety zone from 12:01
a.m. January 10, 2016 to 11:59 p.m. February 1, 2016 or until the river
reading levels is 55 feet and falling at the Natchez, MS river gauge,
whichever occurs earlier.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on Lower
Mississippi River from mile 365.0 to mile 361.0, extending the entire
width of the river from 12:01 a.m. January 10, 2016 through 11:59 p.m.
on February 1, 2016 or until the river reading levels is 55 feet and
falling at the Natchez, MS river gauge, whichever occurs earlier. Entry
into this zone is prohibited unless permission has been granted by the
COTP Lower Mississippi or a designated representative. Broadcast Notice
to Mariners (BNM) will provide any changes in the schedule for this
safety zone. Deviation requests will be considered and reviewed on a
case-by-case basis. The COTP Lower Mississippi River may be contacted
by telephone at 1-866-777-2784 or can be reached by VHF-FM channel 16.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses
based on a number of these statutes and E.O.s, and we discuss First
Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    E.O.s 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and
benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits.
E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and
benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting
flexibility. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under E.O. 12866. Accordingly, it has not been
reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, duration, and time-of-year of the safety zone. This temporary
safety zone will restrict navigation on the Mississippi River from mile
365.0 to mile 361.0 in the vicinity of Natchez, Mississippi from 12:01
p.m. January 10, 2016 through 11:59 p.m. on February 1, 2016, or until
the river reading levels is 55 feet and falling at the Natchez, MS
river gauge, whichever occurs earlier. Notifications to the marine
community will be made through BNM, LNM, and communications with local
waterway users. Notices of changes to the safety zone and effective
times will also be made. Additionally, deviation requests may be made
and will be considered and reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. 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 rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    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 rule. 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 person listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under E.O. 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in E.O. 13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under E.O. 13175,
Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because
it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian
tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian
tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between
the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has
implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person
listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section above.

E. 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 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that
this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
rule involves a temporary safety zone that will prohibit entry into
this zone unless permission has been granted by the COTP Lower
Mississippi or a designated representative on the Mississippi River
mile 365.0 to mile 361.0. It is categorically excluded from further
review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant
Instruction. An environmental analysis checklist supporting this
determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are 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 rule.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

 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 amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1; 6.04-
1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
2. A new temporary Sec.  165.T08-0014 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T08-0014  Safety Zone; Mississippi River, Mile Marker 365.0
to 354.0.

    (a) Location. The following area is a temporary safety zone: all
waters of the Mississippi River between mile 365.0 and mile 361.0,
extending the entire width of the river.
    (b) Effective date. This rule is effective from 12:01 a.m. on
January 10, 2016 through 11:59 p.m. on February 1, 2015, or until the
river reading levels is 55 feet and falling at the Natchez, MS river
gauge, whichever occurs earlier.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec.  165.23, entry into this zone is prohibited unless specifically
authorized by the COTP Lower Mississippi River or a designated
representative.
    (2) Persons or vessels desiring to enter into or pass through the
zone must request permission from the COTP Lower Mississippi River or a
designated representative. They may be contacted on VHF-FM channel 16
or by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER> for COTP Lower Mississippi River.
    (3) If permission is granted, all persons and vessels shall comply
with the instructions of the COTP Lower Mississippi River or designated
representative.
    (d) Informational broadcasts. The COTP Lower Mississippi River or a
designated representative will inform the public through broadcast
notices to mariners of the enforcement period for the emergency safety
zone as well as any changes in the dates and times of enforcement.

    Dated: January 7, 2016.
T.J. Wendt,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Lower Mississippi
River.
[FR Doc. 2016-01637 Filed 1-26-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 234 (Wednesday, December 5, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 72291-72294]
[FR Doc No: 2012-29370]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0814; FRL- 9757-7]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Region 4
States; Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) Infrastructure Requirement for the
1997 and 2006 Fine Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality
Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to conditionally approve submissions from
Kentucky, North Carolina and Tennessee for inclusion into each states'
State Implementation Plan (SIP). This proposal addresses the Clean Air
Act (CAA) requirements pertaining to prevention of significant
deterioration (PSD) for the 1997 annual and 2006 24-hour fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS) infrastructure SIPs. The CAA requires that each state
adopt and submit a SIP for the implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement of each NAAQS promulgated by EPA, which is commonly
referred to as an ``infrastructure'' SIP. EPA is proposing to
conditionally approve the submissions for Kentucky, North Carolina and
Tennessee that relate to adequate provisions prohibiting emissions that
interfere with any other state's required measures to prevent
significant deterioration of its air quality. The subject of this
notice is limited to infrastructure provisions prohibiting emissions
that interfere with any other state's required measures to prevent
significant deterioration of its air quality. All other applicable
infrastructure elements for these states are being addressed in
separate rulemakings.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before January 4, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2012-0814, 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-2012-0814,'' Regulatory Development Section,
Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. 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 to 4:30, excluding federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-
2012-0814. 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 is not 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 Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. 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 to 4:30, excluding
federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Lakeman, Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is (404)
562-9043. Mr. Lakeman can be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Table of Contents

I. Background
II. What are states required to address under sections 110(a)(2)(D)?
III. What is EPA's analysis of how region 4 states addressed element
(D)(i)(II) related to PSD?
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On July 18, 1997 (62 FR 38652), EPA established an annual
PM2.5 NAAQS at 15.0 micrograms per cubic meter ([mu]g/m\3\)
based on a 3-year average of annual mean PM2.5
concentrations. At that time, EPA also established a 24-hour NAAQS of
65 [mu]g/m\3\. See 40 CFR 50.7. On October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144), EPA
retained the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS at 15.0 [mu]g/m\3\
based on a 3-year average of annual mean PM2.5
concentrations, and promulgated a new 24-hour NAAQS of 35 [mu]g/m\3\
based on a 3-year average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour
concentrations. By statute, SIPs meeting the requirements of sections
110(a)(1) and (2) are to be submitted by states within three years
after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. Sections 110(a)(1) and
(2) require states to address basic SIP requirements, including
emissions inventories, monitoring, and modeling to assure attainment
and maintenance of the NAAQS. States were required to submit such SIPs
to EPA no later than July 2000 for the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS, and no later than October 2009 for the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS.
    On March 4, 2004, Earthjustice submitted a notice of intent to sue
related to EPA's failure to issue findings of failure to submit related
to the ``infrastructure'' requirements for the 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS. On March 10, 2005, EPA entered into a consent
decree with Earthjustice which required EPA, among other things, to
complete a Federal Register notice announcing EPA's determinations
pursuant to section 110(k)(1)(B) as to whether each state had made
complete submissions to meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2) for
the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS by October 5, 2008. In accordance with
the consent decree, EPA made completeness findings for each state based
upon what the Agency received from each state for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS as of October 3, 2008.
    On October 22, 2008, EPA published a final rulemaking entitled
``Completeness Findings for Section 110(a) State Implementation Plans
Pertaining to the Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) NAAQS''
making a finding that each state had submitted or failed to submit a
complete SIP that provided the basic program elements of section
110(a)(2) necessary to implement the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. See
73 FR 62902. For those states that did receive findings, the findings
of failure to submit for all or a portion of a state's implementation
plan established a 24-month deadline for EPA to promulgate a Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) to address the outstanding SIP elements
unless, prior to that time, the affected states submitted, and EPA
approved, the required SIPs.
    The findings that all or portions of a state's submission are
complete established a 12-month deadline for EPA to take action upon
the complete SIP elements in accordance with section 110(k). Kentucky,
North Carolina and Tennessee's infrastructure submissions were received
by EPA on August 26, 2008, April 1, 2008, and December 14, 2007,
respectively, for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS and on July
17, 2012,\1\ September 21, 2009, and October 19, 2009, respectively,
for the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Kentucky, North Carolina
and Tennessee were among other states that did not receive findings of
failure to submit because they had provided a complete submission to
EPA to address the infrastructure elements for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS by October 3, 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On July 17, 2012, Kentucky withdrew its September 8, 2009,
110(a)(1)-(2) infrastructure submission addressing the 8-hour ozone,
PM2.5 and Lead NAAQS. Kentucky replaced its September 8,
2009, 110(a)(1)-(2) infrastructure submission with a submission
provided on July 17, 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 6, 2011, WildEarth Guardians and Sierra Club filed an
amended complaint related to EPA's failure to take action on the SIP
submittal related to the ``infrastructure'' requirements for the 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. On October 20, 2011, EPA entered into a
consent decree with WildEarth Guardians and Sierra Club which required
EPA, among other things, to complete a Federal Register notice of the
Agency's final action either approving, disapproving, or approving in
part and disapproving in part the Kentucky, North Carolina and
Tennessee's 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure SIP
submittals addressing the applicable requirements of sections
110(a)(2)(A)-(H), (J)-(M), except for section 110(a)(2)(C)
nonattainment area requirements and section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) visibility
requirements. The rulemaking proposed through today's action is
consistent with the terms of this consent decree.
    Today's action is proposing to conditionally approve Kentucky,
North Carolina and Tennessee's infrastructure submissions for the 1997
annual and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS addressing CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), related to adequate provisions prohibiting
emissions that interfere with any other state's required measures to
prevent significant deterioration of its air quality (referred to as
``prong 3''). EPA is taking action on Kentucky, North Carolina and
Tennessee's infrastructure submissions for the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS for sections 110(a)(2)(A)-(F), (H), (J)-(M),
including other portions of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) in separate actions
from today's rulemaking.

II. What are states required to address under sections 110(a)(2)(D)?

    Section 110(a)(2)(D) has two components, 110(a)(2)(D)(i) and
110(a)(2)(D)(ii). Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) has four components that
require SIPs to include provisions prohibiting any source or other type
of emissions activity in one state from: (1) Contributing significantly
to nonattainment maintenance of the NAAQS in another state, and (2)
interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state
(collectively codified as 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)); and from interfering
with measures required to (3) prevent significant deterioration of air
quality in another state, or (4) protect visibility in another state
(collectively codified as 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)). Section
110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs to include provisions insuring
compliance with sections 115 and 126 of the Act, relating to interstate
and international pollution abatement.
    In previous actions, EPA has already taken action to address
Kentucky, North Carolina and Tennessee's SIP submissions related to
sections 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) for the 1997 annual
and 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. Today's proposed rulemaking
relates only to requirements related to prong 3 of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i), which as previously described, requires that the SIP
contain adequate provisions prohibiting emissions that interfere with
any other state's required measures to prevent significant
deterioration of its air quality.\2\ More information on this
requirement and EPA's rationale for today's proposed conditional
approvals for this requirement for purposes of the 1997 annual and 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS is provided below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ EPA's action today does not address the other requirements
of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. What is EPA's analysis of how region 4 states addressed element
(D)(i)(II) related to PSD?

    EPA's September 25, 2009, memorandum entitled ``Guidance on SIP
Elements Required Under Section 110(a)(1) and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour
Fine Particle (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality
Standards'' provided guidance on addressing the infrastructure
requirements required under sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) of the CAA
with respect to the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. The 2009
Guidance describes that a state's PSD permitting program is the primary
measure that such state must include in its SIP to prevent significant
deterioration of air quality in accordance with prong of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i). EPA has preliminarily determined that Kentucky, North
Carolina and Tennessee's prong 3 infrastructure submissions, with the
exceptions noted below are consistent with the 2009 Guidance, when
considered in conjunction with each State's PSD program.
    At present, there are four regulations that are required to be
adopted into the SIP to meet PSD-related infrastructure requirements.
See Sections 110(a)(2)(C), prong 3 of 110(a)(2)(D)(i), and 110(a)(2)(J)
of the CAA. These regulations are: (1) ``Final Rule To Implement the 8-
Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard--Phase 2; Final Rule''
(November 29, 2005, 70 FR 71612) (hereafter referred to as the ``Phase
II Rule''); (2) ``Implementation of the New Source Review Program for
Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers; Final Rule'' (May 16,
2008, 73 FR 28321) (hereafter referred to

as the ``NSR PM2.5 Rule''); (3) ``Prevention of Significant
Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule; Final Rule''
(June 3, 2010, 75 FR 31514) (hereafter referred to as the ``GHG
Tailoring Rule''); and, (4) ``Final Rule on the Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5
Micrometers (PM2.5)--Increments, Significant Impact Levels
(SILs) and Significant monitoring Concentration (SMC); Final Rule''
(October 20, 2010, 75 FR 64864) (hereafter referred to as
the``PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule (only as it relates
to PM2.5 Increments)''). Specific details on these PSD
requirements can be found in the respective final rules cited above,
however, a brief summary of each rule is provided below.
    First, as part of the framework to implement the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS, EPA promulgated an implementation rule in two phases.\3\ The
Phase 2 Rule is relevant to today's action. Among other changes, this
rule revised the PSD regulations to recognize nitrogen oxide
(NOX) as an ozone precursor.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ EPA promulgated the Phase I Rule on April 30, 2004 entitled
``Final Rule To Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standard--Phase 1.'' See 69 FR 23951.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the NSR PM2.5 Rule revised the NSR program to
establish the framework for implementing preconstruction permit review
for the PM2.5 NAAQS in both attainment areas and
nonattainment areas. These PSD requirements included: (1) A provision
that NSR permits address directly emitted PM2.5 and
precursor pollutants; (2) a requirement establishing significant
emission rates for direct PM2.5 and precursor pollutants
(including sulfur dioxide (SO2) and NOX); (3)
exceptions to the grandfathering policy for permits being reviewed
under the PM10 surrogate program; and, (4) a revision that
states account for gases that condense to form particles (condensables)
in PM2.5 and PM10 emission limits in PSD permits.
    Third, in the GHG Tailoring Rule, EPA tailored the applicability
criteria that determine which GHG emission sources become subject to
the PSD program of the CAA. See 75 FR 31514.
    Lastly, the PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule (only as
it relates to PM2.5 increments) provided additional
regulatory requirements under the PSD program regarding the
implementation of the PM2.5 NAAQS for NSR by specifically
establishing PM2.5 increments pursuant to section 166(a) of
the CAA to prevent significant deterioration of air quality in areas
meeting the NAAQS.
    The PSD requirements promulgated in the aforementioned regulations
establish the framework for a comprehensive SIP PSD program which EPA
has determined are necessary to comply with prong 3 of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i). The following table shows when EPA approved the
incorporation of the aforementioned regulations in each of the States'
implementation plans:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule
               State                             Phase II Rule                        GHG Tailoring Rule                        NSR PM2.5 Rule                  (only as it relates to PM2.5
                                                                                increments)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kentucky..........................  9/15/20120, 75 FR 55988                 12/29/2010, 75 FR 81868                 See Below                              See Below.
North Carolina....................  8/10/2011, 76 FR 36875                  10/18/2011, 76 FR 64240                 See Below                              See Below.
Tennessee.........................  2/7/2012, 77 FR 6016                    2/28/2012, 77 FR 11744                  7/30/2012, 77 FR 44481                 See Below
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Kentucky: On July 3, 2012, the Commonwealth submitted a commitment
letter to EPA requesting conditional approval of outstanding
requirements related to the NSR PM2.5 Rule and
PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule. In this letter, Kentucky
provided a schedule as to how the Commonwealth will address outstanding
requirements related to the NSR PM2.5 Rule and
PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule. EPA determined that this
letter of commitment met the requirements of section 110(k)(4) of the
CAA, and accordingly, EPA conditionally approved the Commonwealth's NSR
PM2.5 Rule and PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule
submission on October 3, 2012. See 77 FR 60307. EPA is relying upon
this earlier commitment to address the NSR PM2.5 Rule and
the PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule (only as it relates to
PM2.5 increments) as the basis for conditionally approving
Kentucky's infrastructure SIP as it relates to prong 3 of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i). If the Commonwealth fails to submit these revisions by
October 3, 2013, today's conditional approval will automatically become
a disapproval on that date and EPA will issue a finding of disapproval.
EPA is not required to propose the finding of disapproval. If the
conditional approval is converted to a disapproval, the final
disapproval triggers the Federal Implementation Plan requirement under
section 110(c). However, if the State meets its commitment within the
applicable timeframe, the conditionally approved submission will remain
a part of the SIP until EPA takes final action approving or
disapproving the new submittal.
    North Carolina: On July 10, 2012, North Carolina submitted a
commitment letter to EPA requesting conditional approval of outstanding
requirements related to the NSR PM2.5 Rule and the
PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule. In this letter, North
Carolina provided a schedule for the State to address outstanding
requirements related to the NSR PM2.5 Rule and the
PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule. EPA determined that this
letter of commitment met the requirements of section 110(k)(4) of the
CAA, and accordingly, EPA conditionally approved North Carolina's NSR
PM2.5 Rule submission on October 16, 2012 (77 FR 63234). EPA
is relying upon this earlier commitment to address the NSR
PM2.5 Rule and the PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC
Rule (only as it relates to PM2.5 increments) as the basis
for conditionally approving North Carolina's infrastructure SIP as it
relates to prong 3 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). If North Carolina fails
to submit these revisions by October 16, 2013, today's conditional
approval will automatically become a disapproval on that date and EPA
will issue a finding of disapproval. EPA is not required to propose the
finding of disapproval. If the conditional approval is converted to a
disapproval, the final disapproval triggers the Federal Implementation
Plan requirement under section 110(c). However, if the State meets its
commitment within the applicable timeframe, the conditionally approved
submission will remain a part of the SIP until EPA takes final action
approving or disapproving the new submittal.
    Tennessee: On October 4, 2012, Tennessee submitted a commitment
letter to EPA requesting conditional approval of specific enforceable

measures related to prong 3 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i); specifically,
the PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule (only as it relates to
PM2.5 increments). In this letter, Tennessee described how
the State has already scheduled a public hearing/comment period and
anticipates providing a final version as soon as possible after the
public hearing to be scheduled on or before December 4, 2012.
Consistent with section 110(k)(4) of the Act, EPA is relying upon this
commitment by Tennessee to address the PM2.5 PSD Increment-
SILs-SMC Rule (only as it relates to PM2.5 increments) as
the basis for conditionally approving Tennessee's infrastructure SIP as
it relates to prong 3 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). If Tennessee fails to
submit these revisions within one year from the date of conditional
approval, today's proposed conditional approval will automatically
become a disapproval on that date and EPA will issue a finding of
disapproval. EPA is not required to propose the finding of disapproval.
If the conditional approval is converted to a disapproval, the final
disapproval triggers the Federal Implementation Plan requirement under
section 110(c). However, if the State meets its commitment within the
applicable timeframe, the conditionally approved submission will remain
a part of the SIP until EPA takes final action approving or
disapproving the new submittal.
    Kentucky, North Carolina and Tennessee have, or will have pending
the commitments described above, demonstrated that major sources in
each state are subject to PSD permitting program to comply with the
prong 3 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA for the PM2.5
NAAQS. Therefore EPA has made the preliminary determination to
conditionally approve that Kentucky, North Carolina and Tennessee's SIP
and practices are adequate for insuring compliance with the applicable
PSD requirements relating to interstate transport pollution for the
1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.

IV. Proposed Action

    As described above, EPA is proposing to conditionally approve the
Kentucky, North Carolina and Tennessee infrastructure SIP submissions
as addressing prong 3 of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA for both
the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Specifically, EPA is
proposing to conditionally approve the portion of the States'
infrastructure SIP section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) submissions as they relate
to provisions prohibiting emissions that interfere with any other
state's required measures to prevent significant deterioration of its
air quality because they are consistent with section 110 of the CAA.

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
proposed 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 proposed 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, and EPA
notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: November 21, 2012.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2012-29370 Filed 12-4-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 5 (Monday, January 9, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2427-2428]
[FR Doc No: 2017-00098]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-79720; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2016-102]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Order Approving
Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by Amendment No. 1 Thereto,
Introducing NYSE OptX

January 3, 2017.

I. Introduction

    On November 3, 2016, NYSE MKT LLC, on behalf of NYSE Amex Options
(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 introduce NYSE OptX, an order entry platform
that will allow for the submission of Qualified Contingent Cross
(``QCC'') Orders and orders executed in the Exchange's Customer Best
Execution (``CUBE'') Auction by ATP Holders. On November 15, 2016, the
Exchange filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposal.\3\ The proposed rule
change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, was published for comment in
the Federal Register on November 22, 2016.\4\ The Commission received
no comment letters on the proposed rule change. This order approves the
proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ In Amendment No. 1, the Exchange clarified that QCC Orders
sent through NYSE OptX to the Exchange for execution will comply
with the order format and EOC entry requirements established by the
Exchange, which are set forth in Exchange Rule 955NY.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 79328 (November 16,
2016), 81 FR 83888 (``Notice'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange proposes to introduce NYSE OptX, an order entry
platform that will allow ATP Holders to submit QCC Orders and CUBE
Orders (collectively, ``paired orders'') to the Exchange.\5\ According
to the Exchange, ATP Holders currently send paired orders to the
Exchange through the use of third-party front end order management
systems or by calling Floor Brokers and relaying their orders by
telephone.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The term ``ATP Holder'' refers to a natural person, sole
proprietorship, partnership, corporation, limited liability company,
or other organization, in good standing, that has been issued an
ATP. An ATP Holder must be a registered broker or dealer pursuant to
Section 15 of the Act. See Exchange Rule 900.2NY.(5).
    \6\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 83889.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the Exchange, NYSE OptX is an order entry platform
that will utilize a combination of Instant Messaging (``IM'') and
browser-based technology to allow ATP Holders to submit paired orders
for execution on the Exchange's trading system.\7\ To execute a paired
order through NYSE OptX, an ATP Holder will send the order in plain
text to NYSE OptX,\8\ which will then translate the message into a pre-
populated order ticket with details of the order and return the order
ticket to the ATP Holder in a browser-based URL. The ATP Holder will
then confirm the order ticket and submit the order to the Exchange for
execution, or send the order to a Floor Broker for execution. After an
order is executed on the Exchange, NYSE OptX will remit details of the
execution back to the ATP Holder.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See id. The Exchange represents that NYSE OptX will not
require any changes to the Exchange's communication or surveillance
rules. Id. at 83889, n.8.
    \8\ The Exchange states that ATP Holders will be required to
provide all the essential information regarding the paired order
when sending the order to NYSE OptX, including the price of the
option and the stock, the size and side of the order, and delta. The
Exchange further represents that QCC Orders sent to the Exchange for
execution will comply with the order format and EOC entry
requirements established by the Exchange. See Notice, supra note 4,
at 83889, n.10. See also Exchange Rule 955NY--Order Format and
System Entry Requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    According to the Exchange, NYSE OptX is designed as an alternative
to front end order management systems and the use of telephones for the
sending of paired orders to the Exchange.\9\ The Exchange notes that
NYSE OptX will not provide ATP Holders with the capability to send any
other type of orders or the capability to send paired orders for
execution to other options markets.\10\ Further, ATP Holders will
continue to be able to submit paired orders through the use of a third-
party front end order management system, or by telephone, as they
currently do.\11\ The Exchange notes that use of OptX to send paired
orders is optional and voluntary.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 83889.
    \10\ See id.
    \11\ See id.
    \12\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange stated that it will announce the effective date of
NYSE OptX in a Trader Update to be published no later than 90 days
following approval of this proposal, and that such effective date will
be no later than 270 days following publication of the Trader
Update.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Commission Findings

    After careful review, the Commission finds that the proposed rule
change is consistent with the requirements of Section 6 of the Act \14\
and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national
securities exchange.\15\ In particular, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\16\
which requires, among other things, that the rules of a national
securities exchange be 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 and that the rules not be designed to permit unfair
discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \15\ In approving this proposed rule change, the Commission has
considered the proposed rule's impact on efficiency, competition,
and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C. 78c(f).
    \16\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In particular, the Commission notes that, according to the
Exchange, NYSE OptX will provide ATP Holders an alternative to third-
party front end order management systems and the use of telephones to
send paired orders to the Exchange.\17\ Such an alternative may help
protect the interests of investors by offering ATP Holders an
additional way to send paired orders to the Exchange for execution. The
Commission notes that the use of OptX will be entirely voluntary and
ATP Holders will still be able to submit paired orders as they do
today, either through the use of third-party front end order management
systems or by telephone. For these reasons, the Commission finds that
the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent
with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act and the rules

and regulations thereunder applicable to a national securities
exchange.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Notice, supra note 4, at 83889. As stated above, the
Exchange represented that ATP Holders will be required to provide
all the essential information regarding the paired order when
sending the order to NYSE OptX and QCC Orders sent to the Exchange
for execution will comply with the order format and EOC entry
requirements established by the Exchange. Id. at 83889, n.10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Conclusion

    IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\18\ that the proposed rule change (SR-NYSEMKT-2016-102), as
modified by Amendment No. 1, be, and hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
    \19\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\19\
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-00098 Filed 1-6-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 67 (Friday, April 6, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 20817]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8308]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL12-46-000]

Puget Sound Energy, Inc.; Notice of Initiation of Proceeding and
Refund Effective Date

    On March 30, 2012, the Commission issued an order that initiated a
proceeding in Docket No. EL12-46-000, pursuant to section 206 of the
Federal Power Act (FPA), 16 U.S.C. 824e (2006), to determine the
justness and reasonableness of the proposed rate reduction by Puget
Sound Energy, Inc. Puget Sound Energy, Inc., 138 FERC ] 61,236 (2012).
    The refund effective date in Docket No. EL12-46-000, established
pursuant to section 206(b) of the FPA, will be the date of publication
of this notice in the Federal Register.

    Dated: March 30, 2012.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-8308 Filed 4-5-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P