[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 26 (Tuesday, February 8, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7237-7238]
[FR Doc No: 2022-02622]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

[Docket No. FMCSA-2021-0015]

Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Vision

AGENCY: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department
of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of final disposition.

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

SUMMARY: FMCSA announces its decision to exempt 13 individuals from the
vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
(FMCSRs) to operate a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) in interstate
commerce. They are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for
various reasons. The exemptions enable these individuals to operate
CMVs in interstate commerce without meeting the vision requirement in
one eye.

DATES: The exemptions were applicable on January 11, 2022. The
exemptions expire on January 11, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief,
Medical Programs Division,<PHONE_NUMBER>, [email protected], FMCSA,
DOT, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W64-224, Washington, DC 20590-
0001. Office hours are from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m., ET, Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. If you have questions regarding
viewing or submitting material to the docket, contact Dockets
Operations,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Public Participation

A. Viewing Comments

    To view comments go to www.regulations.gov, insert the docket
number, FMCSA-2022-0015, in the keyword box, and click ``Search.''
Next, sort the results by ``Posted (Newer-Older),'' choose the first
notice listed, and click ``Browse Comments.'' If you do not have access
to the internet, you may view the docket online by visiting Dockets
Operations in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the DOT West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, between
9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
To be sure someone is there to help you, please call<PHONE_NUMBER> or
(202) 366-9826 before visiting Dockets Operations.

B. Privacy Act

    In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the
public to better inform its regulatory process. DOT posts these
comments, without edit, including any personal information the
commenter provides, to www.regulations.gov, as described in the system
of records notice (DOT/ALL-14 FDMS), which can be reviewed at
www.transportation.gov/privacy.

II. Background

    On December 10, 2021, FMCSA published a notice announcing receipt
of applications from 13 individuals requesting an exemption from vision
requirement in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(10) and requested comments from the
public (86 FR 70575). The public comment period ended on January 10,
2022, and no comments were received.
    FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and
determined that granting the exemptions to these individuals would
achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level
that would be achieved by complying with Sec.  391.41(b)(10).
    The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding vision
found in Sec.  391.41(b)(10) states that a person is physically
qualified to drive a CMV if that person has distant visual acuity of at
least 20/40 (Snellen) in each eye without corrective lenses or visual
acuity separately corrected to 20/40 (Snellen) or better with
corrective lenses, distant binocular acuity of a least 20/40 (Snellen)
in both eyes with or without corrective lenses, field of vision of at
least 70[deg] in the horizontal meridian in each eye, and the ability
to recognize the colors of traffic signals and devices showing red,
green, and amber.

III. Discussion of Comments

    FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.

IV. Basis for Exemption Determination

    Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an exemption
from the FMCSRs for no longer than a 5-year period if it finds such
exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to,
or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such
exemption. The statute also allows the Agency to renew exemptions at
the end of the 5-year period. FMCSA grants medical exemptions from the
FMCSRs for a 2-year period to align with the maximum duration of a
driver's medical certification.
    The Agency's decision regarding these exemption applications is
based on medical reports about the applicants' vision, as well as their
driving records and experience driving with the vision deficiency. The
qualifications, experience, and medical condition of each applicant
were stated and discussed in detail in the December 10, 2021, Federal
Register notice (86 FR 70575) and will not be repeated here.
    FMCSA recognizes that some drivers do not meet the vision
requirement but have adapted their driving to accommodate their
limitation and demonstrated their ability to drive safely. The 13
exemption applicants listed in this notice are in this category. They
are unable to meet the vision requirement in one eye for various
reasons, including amblyopia, central scotoma, enucleation, glaucoma,
ischemic optic neuropathy, macular pucker, prosthetic, retinal
detachment, and retinal scarring. In most cases, their eye conditions
did not develop recently. Eight of the applicants were either born with
their vision impairments or have had them since childhood. The five
individuals that developed their vision conditions as adults have had
them for a range of 5 to 16 years. Although each applicant has one eye
that does not meet the vision requirement in Sec.  391.41(b)(10), each
has at least 20/40 corrected vision in the other eye, and, in a
doctor's opinion, has sufficient vision to perform all the tasks
necessary to operate a CMV.
    Doctors' opinions are supported by the applicants' possession of a
valid license to operate a CMV. By meeting State licensing
requirements, the applicants demonstrated their ability to operate a
CMV with their limited vision in intrastate commerce, even though their
vision disqualified them from driving in interstate commerce. We
believe that the applicants' intrastate driving experience and history
provide an adequate basis for predicting their ability to drive safely
in interstate commerce. Intrastate driving, like interstate operations,
involves substantial driving on highways on the interstate system and
on other roads built to interstate standards. Moreover, driving in
congested urban areas exposes the driver to more pedestrian and
vehicular traffic than exists on interstate highways. Faster reaction
to traffic and traffic signals is generally required because distances
between them are more compact. These conditions tax visual capacity and

driver response just as intensely as interstate driving conditions.
    The applicants in this notice have driven CMVs with their limited
vision in careers ranging for 3 to 45 years. In the past 3 years, no
drivers were involved in crashes, and no drivers were convicted of
moving violations in CMVs. All the applicants achieved a record of
safety while driving with their vision impairment that demonstrates the
likelihood that they have adapted their driving skills to accommodate
their condition. As the applicants' ample driving histories with their
vision deficiencies are good predictors of future performance, FMCSA
concludes their ability to drive safely can be projected into the
future.
    Consequently, FMCSA finds that in each case exempting these
applicants from the vision requirement in Sec.  391.41(b)(10) is likely
to achieve a level of safety equal to that existing without the
exemption.

V. Conditions and Requirements

    The terms and conditions of the exemption are provided to the
applicants in the exemption document and includes the following: (1)
Each driver must be physically examined every year (a) by an
ophthalmologist or optometrist who attests that the vision in the
better eye continues to meet the standard in Sec.  391.41(b)(10) and
(b) by a certified medical examiner (ME) who attests that the
individual is otherwise physically qualified under Sec.  391.41; (2)
each driver must provide a copy of the ophthalmologist's or
optometrist's report to the ME at the time of the annual medical
examination; and (3) each driver must provide a copy of the annual
medical certification to the employer for retention in the driver's
qualification file, or keep a copy in his/her driver's qualification
file if he/she is self-employed. The driver must also have a copy of
the exemption when driving, for presentation to a duly authorized
Federal, State, or local enforcement official.

VI. Preemption

    During the period the exemption is in effect, no State shall
enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with this exemption with
respect to a person operating under the exemption.

VII. Conclusion

    Based upon its evaluation of the 13 exemption applications, FMCSA
exempts the following drivers from the vision requirement, Sec.
391.41(b)(10), subject to the requirements cited above:

Jacob J. Bell (CO)
Robert F. Fullwood (PA)
Glen T. Garrabrant (NJ)
Lloyd M. Hicks (AR)
Kyle M. Innella (PA)
Tyraine Jackson (VA)
Maris I. Kretsu (GA)
Ellis R. Martin (MD)
Jerred R. Murray (NY)
Moises Perez (IL)
Jake Quillen (TN)
David S. Rosen (NJ)
Robert C. Rucker (TN)

    In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), each exemption
will be valid for 2 years from the effective date unless revoked
earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following
occurs: (1) The person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of
the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of
safety than was maintained prior to being granted; or (3) continuation
of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives
of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b).

Larry W. Minor,
Associate Administrator for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2022-02622 Filed 2-7-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-EX-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 248 (Tuesday, December 28, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 81680-81681]
[FR Doc No: 2010-32521]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC
20549-0213.

Extension: Rule 17a-10; SEC File No. 270-507; OMB Control No. 3235-
0563.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the ``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collections of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit these
existing collections of information to the Office of Management and
Budget (``OMB'') for extension and approval.
    Section 17(a) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the ``Act''),
generally prohibits affiliated persons of a registered investment
company (``fund'') from borrowing money or other property from, or
selling or buying securities or other property to or from, the fund or
any company that the fund controls.\1\ Section 2(a)(3) of the Act
defines ``affiliated person'' of a fund to include its investment
advisers.\2\ Rule 17a-10 (17 CFR 270.17a-10) permits (i) a subadviser
of a fund to enter into transactions with funds the subadviser does not
advise but that are affiliated persons of a fund that it does advise
(e.g., other funds in the fund complex), and (ii) a subadviser (and its
affiliated persons) to enter into transactions and arrangements with
funds the subadviser does advise, but only with respect to discrete
portions of the subadvised fund

for which the subadviser does not provide investment advice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 80a-17(a).
    \2\ 15 U.S.C. 80a-2(a)(3)(E).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To qualify for the exemptions in rule 17a-10, the subadvisory
relationship must be the sole reason why section 17(a) prohibits the
transaction. In addition, the advisory contracts of the subadviser
entering into the transaction, and any subadviser that is advising the
purchasing portion of the fund, must prohibit the subadvisers from
consulting with each other concerning securities transactions of the
fund, and limit their responsibility to providing advice with respect
to discrete portions of the fund's portfolio.\3\ Section 17(a) of the
Investment Company Act of 1940 (the ``Act''), generally prohibits
affiliated persons of a registered investment company (``fund'') from
borrowing money or other property from, or selling or buying securities
or other property to or from, the fund or any company that the fund
controls. Section 2(a)(3) of the Act defines ``affiliated person'' of a
fund to include its investment advisers. Rule 17a-10 permits (i) a
subadviser of a fund to enter into transactions with funds the
subadviser does not advise but that are affiliated persons of a fund
that it does advise (e.g., other funds in the fund complex), and (ii) a
subadviser (and its affiliated persons) to enter into transactions and
arrangements with funds the subadviser does advise, but only with
respect to discrete portions of the subadvised fund for which the
subadviser does not provide investment advice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 17 CFR 270.17a-10(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To qualify for the exemptions in rule 17a-10, the subadvisory
relationship must be the sole reason why section 17(a) prohibits the
transaction. In addition, the advisory contracts of the subadviser
entering into the transaction, and any subadviser that is advising the
purchasing portion of the fund, must prohibit the subadvisers from
consulting with each other concerning securities transactions of the
fund, and limit their responsibility to providing advice with respect
to discrete portions of the fund's portfolio. This requirement
regarding the prohibitions and limitations in advisory contracts of
subadvisors relying on the rule constitutes a collection of information
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (``PRA'').\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 44 U.S.C. 3501.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The staff assumes that all funds existing in 2003 amended their
advisory contracts following the amendments to rule 17a-10 that year
that conditioned certain exemptions upon these contractual alterations,
and therefore there is no continuing burden for those funds.\5\ Staff
also assumes that funds that came into existence after 2003 included
the contractual requirements in rule 17a-10 in their subadvisory
agreements and therefore there is no continuing burden for those funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ We assume that funds formed after 2003 that intended to rely
on rule 17a-10 would have included the required provision as a
standard element in their initial subadvisory contracts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on an analysis of fund filings, the staff estimates that
approximately 252 fund portfolios enter into new subadvisory agreements
each year.\6\ Based on discussions with industry representatives, the
staff estimates that it will require approximately 3 attorney hours to
draft and execute additional clauses in new subadvisory contracts in
order for funds and subadvisers to be able to rely on the exemptions in
rule 17a-10. Because these additional clauses are identical to \7\ the
clauses that a fund would need to insert in their subadvisory contracts
to rely on rules 10f-3, 12d3-1, and 17e-1, and because we believe that
funds that use one such rule generally use all of these rules, we
apportion this 3 hour time burden equally among all four rules.
Therefore, we estimate that the burden allocated to rule 17a-10 for
this contract change would be 0.75 hours.\8\ Assuming that all 252
funds that enter into new subadvisory contracts each year include in
their contract the provisions required by the rule, we estimate that
the rule's contract requirement will result in 189 burden hours
annually, with an associated cost of approximately $59,724.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Based on information in Commission filings, we estimate that
42.5 percent of funds are advised by subadvisers.
    \7\ 17 CFR 270.17a-10(a)(2).
    \8\ This estimate is based on the following calculation: 3 hours
/ 4 rules = 0.75 hours.
    \9\ These estimates are based on the following calculations:
0.75 hours x 252 portfolios = 189 burden hours; $316 per hour x 189
hours = $59,724 total cost. The Commission staff's estimates
concerning the wage rates for attorney time are based on salary
information for the securities industry compiled by the Securities
Industry and Financial Markets Association. The $316 per hour figure
for an attorney is from the Securities Industry and Financial
Markets Association's Management & Professional Earnings in the
Securities Industry 2009, modified by Commission staff to account
for an 1800-hour work-year and multiplied by 5.35 to account for
bonuses, firm size, employee benefits, and overhead.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the
purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act. The estimate is not derived
from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the
costs of Commission rules. Complying with this collection of
information requirement is necessary to obtain the benefit of relying
on rule 17a-10. Responses will not be kept confidential. 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 control
number.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of
the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d)
ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    Please direct your written comments to Thomas Bayer, Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312; or send an
e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
    December 20, 2010.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-32521 Filed 12-27-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register: June 25, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 123)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 35985-35987]
[DOCID:fr25jn08-38]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2008-0478]
RIN 1625-AA09

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; LaLoutre Bayou, Yscloskey, LA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to change the regulation governing
the operation of the State Route 46 (LA 46) Bridge across LaLoutre
Bayou, mile 22.9, at Yscloskey, St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana. Due to
Hurricane Katrina, the Louisiana Department of Transportation and
Development (LDOTD) has experienced a shortage of bridge tender
personnel in the area where the bridge is located. This proposed rule
change allows for more efficient use of personnel by requiring a two
hour notice for night time openings.

DATES: Comments and related material must reach the Coast Guard on or
before August 25, 2008.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket
number USCG-2008-0478 to the Docket Management Facility at the U.S.
Department of Transportation. To avoid duplication, please use only one
of the following methods:
    (1) Online: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (3) Hand delivery: Room W12-140 on the Ground Floor of the West
Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The
telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call Kay Wade, Bridge Administration Branch, telephone 504-671-
2128. If you have questions on viewing or submitting material to the
docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted,
without change, to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. We have an agreement with the
Department of Transportation (DOT) to use the Docket Management
Facility. Please see DOT's ``Privacy Act'' paragraph below.

Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2008-0478), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and give the reason for each
comment. We recommend that you include your name and a mailing address,
an e-mail address, or a phone number in the body of your document so
that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
You may submit your comments and material by electronic means, mail,
fax, or delivery to the Docket Management Facility at the address under
ADDRESSES; but please submit your comments and material by only one
means. If you submit them by mail or delivery, submit them in an
unbound format, no larger than 8 \1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit them by mail and would
like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and
material received during the comment period. We may change this
proposed rule in view of them.

Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov at
any time. Enter the docket number for this rulemaking (USCG-2008-0478)
in the Search box, and click ``Go>>.'' You may also visit either the
Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the
DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays or the Bridge Administration Office in Room 1313 of the Hale
Boggs Federal Building, 500 Poydras Street, New Orleans, LA 70130
between 7 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of all comments received into
any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment
(or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review the Department of
Transportation's Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register
published on April 11, 2000 (65 FR 19477), or you may visit http://
DocketsInfo.dot.gov.

Public Meeting

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

Background and Purpose

    Due to a personnel shortage, the bridge owner, LDOTD, has requested
a change in the operating regulation of the LA 46 vertical lift span
bridge across LaLoutre Bayou, mile 22.9 at Yscloskey, St. Bernard
Parish, Louisiana, in order to make more efficient use of operating
resources. The bridge has a horizontal clearance of 45 feet. It has a
vertical clearance of 2 feet in the closed position and 53 feet in the
open position. In accordance with 33 CFR 117.5, the bridge is required
to open on signal for the passage of marine vessels.
    The LA 46 Bridge has been closed to marine traffic since August
2005, when it sustained damage during Hurricane Katrina. The Coast
Guard has received no complaints about the bridge closure. The bridge
has been repaired and will soon reopen to marine traffic.

Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The bridge owner has requested a change in the operating regulation
which would allow the draw of the LA 46 Bridge to open on signal;
except that from 8 p.m. to 4 a.m., the draw would open on signal if at
least two hours notice is given. The proposed rule change to 33 CFR
117.5 would reduce the hours the bridge must be manned between 8 p.m.
and 4 a.m., making more efficient use of operating resources. The LDOTD
believes the proposed operating regulation will accommodate vehicular
traffic and meet the needs of navigation, while making the best use of
available personnel to operate the bridge.
    We have already issued a Test Deviation to allow the LDOTD to test
the proposed schedule and to obtain data and public comments. This
document is available in the docket (see ``Viewing comments and
documents''). 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 the
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and the above referenced Temporary
Deviation to determine if a permanent special drawbridge operating
regulation is warranted.

Regulatory Analyses

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

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits
under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under that Order.
    We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so
minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary.
    There has been no waterway passage of marine vessels at the bridge
site since August 2005. The proposed change will have little to no
impact on the public.

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.
    Although the change will require 2 hours advance notice for
openings between 8 p.m. and 4 a.m., an alternate route, via Yscloskey
Bayou, to the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet and Lake Borgne is
available with no additional transit time. Additionally, most users of
this waterway are able to give notice prior to transiting through the
bridge. Before the effective period, we will issue maritime advisories
widely available to users of the waterway.
    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 guides 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 this action is not likely to
have a significant effect on the human environment because it simply
promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges. We
seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a
significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 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; Department of Homeland
Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

    Add new Sec.  117.468 to read as follows:

Sec.  117.468  LaLoutre Bayou.

    The draw of the LA 46 Bridge, mile 22.9, at Yscloskey, shall open
on signal; except that from 8 p.m. to 4 a.m., the draw shall open on
signal if at least two hours notice is given.

    Dated: June 16, 2008.
J. R. Whitehead,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commander, Eighth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. E8-14367 Filed 6-24-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 119 (Thursday, June 24, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 33154-33157]
[FR Doc No: 2021-13401]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R02-OAR-2020-0613; FRL-10024-96 Region 2]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New Jersey and
New York; 1997 Ozone Attainment Demonstrations for the NY-NJ-CT
Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve revisions to the ozone attainment portions of the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the states of New Jersey and New
York to meet the Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements for attaining the
1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS).
Specifically, the EPA is proposing to approve New Jersey's and New
York's demonstrations of attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS for
their portions of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island NY-NJ-CT
Moderate 1997 8-hour ozone nonattainment area (hereafter, the NY-NJ-CT
area or the NY-NJ-CT nonattainment area). This action is being taken
under the Clean Air Act.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before July 26, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R02-OAR-2020-0613 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Omar Hammad, Environmental Protection
Agency, 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007-1866, at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
or by email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. What action is the EPA proposing?
II. What is the background for this proposed rulemaking?
    A. History of NY-NJ-CT Nonattainment Area
    B. Moderate Nonattainment Area and Anti-Backsliding Requirements
III. What is the EPA proposing to approve?
IV. What is the EPA's basis for proposing to approve the 1997
attainment demonstration analysis?
    A. Air Quality Data and Attainment Determinations
    B. Components of the Modeled Attainment Demonstrations
    C. The EPA's Evaluation
V. Proposed Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What action is the EPA proposing?

A. History of NY-NJ-CT Nonattainment Area

    The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
the ozone attainment demonstration portions of the comprehensive State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by New Jersey and New
York to meet Clean Air Act requirements for attaining the 1997 84 parts
per billion (ppb) 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS). New Jersey submitted its SIP revision to the EPA on January 2,
2018 \1\ and New York submitted its SIP revision to the EPA on November
13, 2017.\2\ New Jersey and New York previously submitted attainment
demonstrations for the 1997 84 ppb 8-hour ozone standard which were
approved by the EPA. 78 FR 9596 (February 11, 2013). On June 18, 2012,
the EPA issued a Clean Data Determination (CDD) for the 1997 84 ppb 8-
hour ozone standard for the NY-NJ-CT area based on the attainment
demonstrations submitted by the two States. 77 FR 36163 (March 26,
2012). However, on May 4, 2016, EPA rescinded the CDD since EPA
determined that areas within the NY-NJ-CT area exceeded the 1997 84 ppb
standard based on 2010-2012 monitoring data. 81 FR 26697 (May 4, 2016).
EPA simultaneously issued a SIP Call for the affected states within the
nonattainment area to address the 1997 84 ppb 8-hour ozone standard.
The SIP revisions submitted by New Jersey and New York address the
attainment demonstration requirements of the May 4, 2016 SIP Call. The
EPA's review of this material indicates that ambient air quality
monitors within the NY-NJ-CT area are attaining the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Submittal letter dated December 22, 2017 and received by the
EPA January 2, 2018.
    \2\ Submittal letter dated November 10, 2017 and received by the
EPA November 13, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. What is the background for this proposed rulemaking?

    In 1997, the EPA revised the health-based NAAQS for ozone, setting
it at 84 ppb (parts per billion) averaged over an 8-hour time frame.
The EPA set the 8-hour ozone standard based on scientific evidence
demonstrating that ozone causes adverse health effects at lower ozone
concentrations, over longer periods of time, than the former 1-hour
ozone standard. The EPA determined that the 8-hour standard would be
more protective of human health, especially with regard to children and
adults who are active outdoors, and individuals with a pre-existing
respiratory disease, such as asthma.
    On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23858), the EPA finalized its attainment/
nonattainment designations for areas across the country with respect to
the 1997 8-hour ozone standard of 84 ppb. These actions became
effective on June 15, 2004. Among those nonattainment areas was the NY-
NJ-CT area. The NY-NJ-CT nonattainment area is composed of: Bergen,
Essex, Hudson, Hunterdon, Middlesex, Monmouth, Morris, Passaic,
Somerset, Sussex, Union, and Warren Counties in New Jersey; Bronx,
Kings, Nassau, New York, Queens, Richmond, Rockland, Suffolk, and
Westchester Counties in New York; and Fairfield, Middlesex, and New
Haven Counties in Connecticut.
    On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23951), the EPA also promulgated the Phase
1 8-hour ozone implementation rule which provided details about the
classification of areas designated nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour
ozone standard. The designations triggered the CAA requirements under
section 182(b) for Moderate nonattainment areas, including a
requirement to submit an attainment demonstration. The EPA's Phase 2 8-
hour ozone implementation rule (Phase 2 rule), published on November
29, 2005 (70 FR 71612), specifies that states must submit attainment
demonstrations for their nonattainment areas to the EPA by no later
than three years from the effective date of designation, that is June
15, 2007. See 40 CFR 51.908(a). Subsequently, New Jersey and New York
submitted the associated SIP revisions to present their respective
plans to attain the 1997 84 ppb 8-hour ozone standard for the NY-NJ-CT

nonattainment area. New Jersey submitted a SIP detailing plans to
attain the 1997 standard on October 29, 2007, while New York submitted
their SIP on February 8, 2008. EPA approved both SIPs on February 11,
2013. 78 FR 9596 (February 11, 2013).
    On March 12, 2008 (73 FR 16436), the EPA revised the ozone NAAQS to
a level of 75 ppb to further increase the protection of public health
and the environment. State and Federal emission reduction efforts
adopted to meet the 1997 8-hour ozone standard continued with the
implementation of the 2008 ozone NAAQS. On May 21, 2012 (77 FR 30088),
the EPA designated the NY-NJ-CT as a ``Marginal'' ozone nonattainment
area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. See 40 CFR 81.307, 81.331, and 81.333.
As a result of its ``Marginal'' classification, the area was required
to attain the 2008 ozone standard by July 20, 2015 but was not required
to submit an attainment demonstration for the 2008 ozone standard. 42
U.S.C 7511a(a). On May 4, 2016, the EPA determined that the NY-NJ-CT
nonattainment area failed to attain by the attainment date, resulting
in the area to be reclassified from a ``Marginal'' to a ``Moderate''
nonattainment area. 81 FR 26697 (May 4, 2016). State attainment plans
for the 2008 ``Moderate'' ozone NAAQS nonattainment areas were due by
January 1, 2017. 81 FR 26697 (May 4, 2016). Furthermore, the EPA once
again revised the ozone NAAQS in 2015, setting both levels of the
primary and secondary NAAQS at 70 ppb. 80 FR 65292 (October 26, 2015).
The NY-NJ-CT area was designated by the EPA as a ``Moderate''
nonattainment area for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. 83 FR 25776 (June 4,
2018).
    On June 18, 2012, the EPA issued a CDD for the NY-NJ-CT area with
respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and determined that the area
attained the 1997 standard by the June 15, 2010 attainment deadline. 77
FR 36163 (June 18, 2012). The purpose of the CDD was to suspend the
involved states' obligations to submit attainment-related planning
requirements, including the obligation to submit attainment
demonstrations, reasonably available control measures (RACM),
reasonable further progress (RFP) plans, and contingency measures with
respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. On May 15, 2014 (79 FR
27830), the EPA proposed to rescind the CDD for the area based on the
2010-2012 monitoring data showing the area was no longer attaining the
1997 8-hour ozone standard, and the EPA proposed a SIP Call for
submittal of a new ozone attainment demonstration for the NY-NJ-CT area
for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. As an alternative to submitting a new
attainment demonstration for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, the EPA proposed to
affected states to respond to the SIP Call by voluntarily requesting
they be reclassified to ``Moderate'' for the 2008 ozone standard,
therefore the states would prepare SIP revisions demonstrating how they
would attain the more stringent 2008 standard. However, the NY-NJ-CT
area failed to attain the 2008 ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment
date of July 20, 2015. (80 FR 51992 August 27, 2015). By the operation
of law, the NY-NJ-CT area was reclassified to ``Moderate''
nonattainment for the 2008 ozone standard. This effectively eliminated
the need for the three states involved to voluntarily request
reclassification. The NY-NJ-CT area submitted Moderate nonattainment
plans for the more stringent 2008 ozone standard, satisfying the final
SIP Call for the 1997 ozone standard, since an approvable plan would
demonstrate attainment of a more stringent NAAQS. 81 FR 26687 (May 4,
2016). Both New Jersey and New York submitted combined attainment
demonstrations for the 1997 and 2008 ozone standards for their portions
of the NY-NJ-CT area. New Jersey submitted its SIP revision to the EPA
on January 2, 2018 and New York submitted its SIP revision to the EPA
on November 13, 2017. Connecticut submitted comprehensive revisions to
its SIP for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS on August 8, 2017 and the EPA
approved the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS attainment demonstration revision
in that submittal. (83 FR 39890 August 13, 2018).

B. Moderate Nonattainment Area and Anti-Backsliding Requirements

    The EPA's November 29, 2005 Phase 2 ozone implementation rule
addresses, among other things, the control obligations that apply to
areas designated nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The
Phase 1 and Phase 2 ozone implementation rules outline the SIP
requirements and deadlines for various requirements in areas designated
as Moderate nonattainment. For such areas, modeling and attainment
demonstrations with projection year emission inventories were due by
June 15, 2007, along with RFP plans, RACM, motor vehicle emissions
budgets and contingency measures (40 CFR 51.908(a) and (c), 51.910,
51.912). In addition, Moderate nonattainment areas were also required
to submit a reasonably available control technology (RACT) SIP. New
Jersey and New York previously submitted attainment demonstrations to
present plans to attain the 1997 84 ppb 8-hour ozone standard and were
approved by the EPA. 78 FR 9596 (February 11, 2013). On June 18, 2012,
the EPA issued a Clean Data Determination (CDD) for the 1997 84 ppb 8-
hour ozone standard for the NY-NJ-CT Nonattainment area. 77 FR 17341
(March 26, 2012). However, on May 4, 2016, EPA rescinded the CDD since
EPA determined that areas within the NY-NJ-CT Nonattainment area
exceeded the 1997 84 ppb standard based on 2010-2012 monitoring data.
81 FR 26697 (May 4, 2016). EPA simultaneously issued a SIP Call for the
affected states within the nonattainment area to address the 1997 84
ppb 8-hour ozone standard. The SIP revisions submitted by New Jersey
and New York address the requirements of the May 4, 2016 SIP Call. The
EPA's review of this material indicates that ambient air quality
monitors within the NY-NJ-CT Nonattainment area are attaining the 1997
ozone NAAQS.
    In the 2008 ozone NAAQS SIP Requirements rule, the EPA revoked the
1997 ozone NAAQS for all purposes and established anti-backsliding
requirements for that NAAQS, which include submittal of an attainment
demonstration. See 80 FR 12296 (March 6, 2015).\3\ The EPA retained a
listing of the designated areas for the revoked 1997 NAAQS in 40 CFR
part 81, for identifying anti-backsliding requirements that may apply
to those areas. Accordingly, in an area designated nonattainment for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS and nonattainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, as is
the case with the NY-NJ-CT nonattainment area, New Jersey and New York
were obligated to implement the applicable requirements set forth in 40
CFR 51.1100(o), including the requirement to submit an attainment
demonstration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ In South Coast Air Quality Management District v. EPA, the
D.C. Circuit vacated a number of provisions in the 2008 Ozone SIP
Requirements Rule, but that decision did not affect the rule's anti-
backsliding requirement to submit an attainment demonstration for
the 1997 ozone NAAQS. South Coast Air Quality Management District v.
EPA, No. 15-1115 (D.C. Cir. February 16, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. What is the EPA proposing to approve?

    New Jersey submitted a SIP revision to the EPA on January 2, 2018
and New York submitted a SIP revision to the EPA on November 13, 2017,
these submittals addressed, among other things, the ozone attainment
demonstrations for the revoked 1997 8-hour ozone standard for their
respective

portions of the NY-NJ-CT area satisfying the May 4, 2016 SIP call.
    This proposed action addresses New Jersey's demonstration of
attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard for the New Jersey portion
of the NY-NJ-CT area, submitted on January 2, 2018 and New York's
demonstration of attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard for the
New York portion of the NY-NJ-CT area, submitted on November 13,
2017.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The EPA is not acting on any other portion of the submittals
in this proposed action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. What is the EPA's basis for proposing to approve the 1997
attainment demonstration analysis?

A. Air Quality Data and Attainment Determinations

    Under the regulations at 40 CFR part 50, the 1997 ozone NAAQS is
attained at a monitoring site when the three-year average of the annual
fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average ambient air quality ozone
concentration is less than or equal to 0.08 ppm. This three-year
average is referred to as the design value. When the design value is
less than or equal to 0.08 ppm at each ambient air quality monitoring
site within a nonattainment area, then the area is deemed to be meeting
the 1997 standard. According to 40 CFR part 50, Appendix I, the number
of significant figures in the level of the standard dictates the
rounding convention for comparing the computed 3-year average annual
fourth-highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration with
the level of the standard. The third decimal place of the computed
value is rounded, with values equal to or greater than 5 rounding up.
Thus, a computed 3-year average ozone concentration of 0.085 ppm is the
lowest value that is greater than 0.08 ppm.
    The EPA has reviewed the 8-hour ozone ambient air quality
monitoring data for the 2014-2016 monitoring period for the NY-NJ-CT
area, referenced in New Jersey's and New York's submittals, as recorded
in the EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) database. Air quality monitoring
data from each year for 2014-2016 has been certified by Connecticut,
New Jersey and New York in accordance with 40 CFR 58.15, and AQS
reflects this. Based on that review, the EPA has concluded that the NY-
NJ-CT area has a 2014-2016 design value of 0.083 ppm \5\ and is in
attainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. Certified data for 2017, 2018 and
2019 in the NY-NJ-CT area and the subsequent design values for 2015-
2017, 2016-2018 and 2017-2019 are consistent with continued
attainment.\6\ The EPA has a continuing obligation to review the air
quality data each year to determine whether areas are meeting the NAAQS
and will continue to conduct that review in the future after data is
complete, quality-assured, certified and submitted to the EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The regulations at 40 CFR part 50, Appendix I specify that
the design value shall be based on three consecutive, complete
calendar years of air quality monitoring data. This requirement is
met for the three-year period at a monitoring site if daily maximum
8-hour average concentrations are available for at least 90%, on
average, of the days during the designated ozone monitoring season,
with a minimum data completeness in any one year of at least 75% of
the designated sampling days. These thresholds have been met for the
ambient air quality monitoring data reviewed by EPA.
    \6\ The design values are available on the EPA's website at:
www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values#report. The 2015-
2017 DV is 0.083 ppm, the 2016-2018 DV is 0.082 ppm and the 2017-
2019 DV is 0.082 ppm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As previously discussed, the EPA rescinded the CDD on May 4, 2016
based on the fact that the area was no longer attaining the standard,
and issued a SIP Call for a new attainment demonstration for the 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS for the NY-NJ-CT area. The EPA determined that the
submission of a Moderate nonattainment area attainment plan for the
more stringent 2008 ozone NAAQS would satisfy the SIP Call for the NY-
NJ-CT area in relation to the 1997 ozone standard. Both New Jersey and
New York submitted a combined attainment demonstration analysis for the
1997 and 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

B. Components of the Modeled Attainment Demonstrations

    Section 110(a)(2)(k) of the Act requires states to prepare air
quality modeling to demonstrate how they will meet ambient air quality
standards. The SIP must demonstrate that the ``measures, rules, and
regulations contained in it are adequate to provide for the timely
attainment and maintenance of the national standard.'' See 40 CFR
51.112(a). The EPA determined that states must use photochemical grid
modeling, or any other analytical method determined by the
Administrator to be at least as effective, to demonstrate attainment of
the ozone health-based standard in areas classified as ``Moderate'' or
above, and to do so by the required attainment date. See 40 CFR
51.908(c). The EPA requires an attainment demonstration using air
quality modeling that meets the EPA's guidelines. The model analysis
can be supplemented by a ``weight of evidence'' analysis in which the
state can use a variety of information to enhance the conclusions
reached by the photochemical model analysis. In the case of New
Jersey's and New York's submittals for their portions of the NY-NJ-CT
area, the weight of evidence also included monitoring evidence that the
area design value is attaining the 1997 standard. The EPA has
determined that the photochemical grid modeling conducted by the States
is consistent with the EPA's guidelines and the model performed
acceptably. See 40 CFR 51.908(c).

C. The EPA's Evaluation

    In their attainment demonstrations, New Jersey and New York
included results from the Ozone Transport Commission's (OTC's) SIP air
quality modeling.\7\ The model used by the OTC was the Community Multi-
scale Air Quality Model version 5.0.2 (CMAQ). This model is a
photochemical grid model capable of simulating ozone production on a
regional or national scale. The OTC CMAQ model projected 2015-2017
design value results indicating that all air quality monitors in the
NY-NJ-CT nonattainment area will attain the 1997 ozone NAAQS in 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The OTC modeling results are available in the ``Technical
Support Document for the 2011 Ozone Transport Commission/Mid-
Atlantic Northeastern Visibility Union Modeling Platform'', November
15, 2016 in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In summary, the photochemical grid modeling used by New Jersey and
New York in their SIP submittals to demonstrate attainment of the 1997
ozone NAAQS meets the EPA's guidelines and is acceptable to the EPA.
Air quality monitoring data for 2014-2016 also demonstrates attainment
of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard throughout the NY-NJ-CT area, as have
the subsequent design values for 2015-2017, 2016-2018 and 2017-2019.\8\
The purpose of the attainment demonstration is to demonstrate how,
through enforceable and approvable emission reductions, an area will
meet the standard by the attainment date. New York and New Jersey have
already adopted, submitted, approved and implemented all necessary
ozone control measures necessary for attainment of the 1997 ozone
NAAQS. Based on: (1) The States following the EPA's modeling guidance,
(2) the modeled attainment of 1997 standard, (3) the air quality
monitoring data for 2014-2016, 2015-2017, 2016-2018, 2017-2019, and (4)
the implemented SIP-approved control measures, the EPA is proposing to
approve the attainment demonstration analyses for the 1997

ozone NAAQS for the New Jersey and New York portion of the NY-NJ-CT
area. The EPA is not taking action on the other elements of the State
submittals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The design values are available on the EPA's website at:
www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values#report. The 2015-
2017 DV is 0.083 ppm, the 2016-2018 DV is 0.082 ppm and the 2017-
2019 DV is 0.082 ppm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Proposed Action

    The EPA has evaluated the information provided by New Jersey and
New York and has considered all other information it deems relevant to
a demonstration of attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard and the
continued attainment of the 1997 8-hour ozone standard based on the
modeling, the quality assured and certified monitoring data, and the
implementation of the more stringent 2008 8-hour ozone standard. The
EPA is therefore proposing to approve New Jersey's and New York's
attainment demonstrations for the states' respective portions of the
NY-NJ-CT area for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. This proposed rulemaking is
intended to address the EPA's obligations to act on the 1997 8-hour
standard attainment demonstration portions of the New Jersey January 2,
2018 submittal and the New York November 13, 2017 submittal addressing
the NY-NJ-CT nonattainment area.
    The EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in
this proposal. Any timely comment submitted will be considered before
the EPA takes final action. Interested parties may participate in the
Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written comments as
discussed in the ADDRESSES section of this rulemaking.

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 proposes to approve 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) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed rulemaking action, pertaining to New
York's and New Jersey's 1997 8-hour ozone attainment demonstration
submissions is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen Dioxide, Intergovernmental Relations, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Particulate matter, Volatile
Organic Compounds.

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

    Dated: June 8, 2021.
Walter Mugdan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 2.
[FR Doc. 2021-13401 Filed 6-23-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 43 (Friday, March 4, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 12408-12409]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04541]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 43 / Friday, March 4, 2022 / Proposed
Rules

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2022-0123; Airspace Docket No. 22-ANE-1]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Establishment of Class E Airspace; Jaffrey, NH

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to establish Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface for Jaffrey/Silver Ranch
Airport, Jaffrey, NH, to accommodate area navigation (RNAV) global
positioning system (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures
(SIAPs) serving this airport. Controlled airspace is necessary for the
safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations in
the area.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 18, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to: The U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West
Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001;
Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify the
Docket No. FAA-2022-0123; Airspace Docket No. 22-ANE-1, at the
beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
and subsequent amendments can be viewed on line at https://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. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is also available for inspection at the
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on
the availability of FAA Order JO 7400.11F at NARA, email
[email protected] or go to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Fornito, Operations Support
Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 1701
Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; 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 would establish Class E airspace for Jaffrey/Silver Ranch
Airport, Jaffrey, NH.

Comments Invited

    Interested persons are invited to comment on this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
    Communications should identify both docket numbers (Docket No. FAA-
2022-0123 and Airspace Docket No. 22-ANE-1) and be submitted in
triplicate to DOT Docket Operations (see ADDRESSES section for the
address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov.
    Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on
this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped
postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments to FAA
Docket No. FAA-2022-0123; Airspace Docket No. 22-ANE-1''. The postcard
will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this document may be changed in light of the
comments received. All comments submitted will be available for
examination in the public docket both before and after the comment
closing date. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with
FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at https://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for address and phone number) between
9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined between 8:00 a.m. and
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays, at the
office of the Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration,
Room 350, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10, 2021, and effective
September 15, 2021. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is publicly available as
listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order JO 7400.11F
lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service
routes, and reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA proposes an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 to establish Class
E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a
7.1-mile radius of Jaffrey/Silver Ranch Airport, Jaffrey, NH, providing
the controlled airspace required to support RNAV (GPS) standard
instrument approach procedures for IFR operations at this airport.
    Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order JO 7400.11F, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September
15, 2021, 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 FAA Order JO 7400.11.
    FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points,
is published yearly and effective on September 15.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

Lists of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 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 Federal Aviation
Administration Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021, is
amended as follows:

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

* * * * *

ANE MA E5 Jaffrey, NH [Established]

Jaffrey/Silver Ranch Airport, NH
    (Lat. 42[deg]48'18' W'' N, long. 72[deg]00'11'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 7.1-mile radius of Jaffrey/Silver Ranch Airport.

    Issued in College Park, Georgia, on February 28, 2022.
Andreese C. Davis,
Manager, Airspace & Procedures Team South, Eastern Service Center, Air
Traffic Organization.
[FR Doc. 2022-04541 Filed 3-3-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: August 6, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 152)]
[Notices]
[Page 45768-45769]
[DOCID:fr06au08-64]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-8701-2]

Request for Nominations for 2008 Clean Air Excellence Awards
Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Request for nominations for Clean Air Excellence Awards.

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

SUMMARY: EPA established the Clean Air Excellence Awards Program in
February, 2000. This is an annual awards program to recognize
outstanding and innovative efforts that support progress in achieving
clean air. This notice announces the competition for the Year 2008
program.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Awards Program Notice: Pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
7403(a)(1) and (2) and sections 103(a)(1) and (2) of the Clean Air Act
(CAA), notice is hereby given that the EPA's Office of Air and
Radiation (OAR) announces the opening of competition for the Year 2008
``Clean Air Excellence Awards Program'' (CAEAP). The intent of the
program is to recognize and honor outstanding, innovative efforts that
help to make progress in achieving cleaner air. The CAEAP is open to
both public and private entities. Entries are limited to the United
States. There are five general award categories: (1) Clean Air
Technology; (2) Community Action; (3) Education/Outreach; (4)
Regulatory/Policy Innovations; (5) Transportation Efficiency
Innovations; and two special awards categories: (1) Thomas W. Zosel
Outstanding Individual Achievement Award, and (2) Gregg Cooke Visionary
Program Award. Awards are given on an annual basis and are for
recognition only.
    Entry Requirements: All applicants are asked to submit their entry
on a CAEAP entry form, contained in the CAEAP Entry Package, which may
be obtained from the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee (CAAAC) Web site
at: http://www.epa.gov/oar/caaac by clicking on Awards Program or by

contacting Mr. Pat Childers, U.S. EPA at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER>
Fax, mailing address: Office of Air and Radiation (6102A), 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004. The entry form is a
simple, three-part form asking for general information on the applicant
and the proposed entry; asking for a description of why the entry is
deserving of an award; and requiring information from three (3)
independent references for the proposed entry. Applicants should also
submit additional supporting documentation as necessary. Specific
directions and information on filing an entry form are included in the
Entry Package.
    Judging and Award Criteria: Judging will be accomplished through a
screening process conducted by EPA staff, with input from outside
subject experts, as needed. Members of the CAAAC will provide advice to
EPA on the entries. The final award decisions will be made by the EPA
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation. Entries will be judged
using both general criteria and criteria specific to each individual
category. There are four (4) general criteria: (1) The entry directly
or indirectly (i.e., by encouraging actions) reduces emissions of
criteria pollutants or hazardous/toxic air pollutants; (2) The entry
demonstrates innovation and uniqueness; (3) The entry provides a model
for others to follow (i.e., it is replicable); and (4) The positive
outcomes from the entry are continuing/sustainable. Although not
required to win an award, the following general criteria will also be
considered in the judging process: (1) The entry has positive effects
on other environmental media in addition to air; (2) The entry
demonstrates effective collaboration and partnerships; and (3) The
individual or organization submitting the entry has effectively
measured/evaluated the outcomes of the project, program, technology,
etc. As previously mentioned, additional criteria will be used for each
individual award category. These criteria are listed in the 2008 Entry
Package.

DATE: All submission of entries for the Clean Air Excellence Awards
Program must be postmarked by September 19, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Clean Air Excellence Awards submissions should be sent to
Clean Air Excellence Awards, Attn Mr. Pat Childers, U.S. EPA, Office of
Air and Radiation (6102A), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20004.
    Concerning the Clean Air Excellence Awards Program please use the
CAAAC Web site and click on Awards Program or contact Mr. Pat Childers,
U.S. EPA, at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<PHONE_NUMBER> (Fax), mailing address:
Office of Air and Radiation (6102A), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20004.
    Inspection of Committee Documents: The Committee agenda and any
documents prepared for the meeting will be publicly available at the
meeting. Thereafter, these documents, together with CAAAC meeting
minutes, will be available by contacting the Office of Air and
Radiation Docket and requesting information under docket OAR-2004-0075.
The Docket office can be reached by telephoning<PHONE_NUMBER>; Fax 202-
260-4400.

    Dated: August 1, 2008.
Patrick Childers,
Designated Federal Official for Clean Air Act Advisory Committee.
 [FR Doc. E8-18140 Filed 8-5-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: August 18, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 160)]
[Notices]
[Page 48268-48269]
[DOCID:fr18au08-105]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-58340; File No. SR-Phlx-2007-33]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc.;
Order Granting Approval of a Proposed Rule Change, as Modified by
Amendment Nos. 1 and 2 Thereto, Relating to Margining

August 11, 2008.
    On April 5, 2007, the Philadelphia Stock Exchange, Inc. (``Phlx''
or ``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'' or ``Exchange Act''),\1\ and Rule 19b-4
\2\ thereunder, a proposed rule change to amend its margin rules. On
July 31, 2007, Phlx filed Amendment No. 1 to the proposed rule change.
On May 19, 2008, Phlx filed Amendment No. 2 to the proposed rule
change.\3\ The proposal was published in the Federal Register on July
7, 2008.\4\ The Commission received no comments on the proposal. This
order approves the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment Nos.
1 and 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ Amendment No. 2 replaced and superseded the original filing
and Amendment No. 1 in their entirety.
    \4\ Exchange Act Release No. 58045 (June 26, 2008), 73 FR 38487.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Exchange proposed to streamline and make more efficient its
margin rules and procedures by: (1) Adding a new section to Rule 721
(Proper and Adequate Margin) requiring each member to indicate in
writing to the Exchange that such member shall be bound by the initial
and maintenance margin requirements of either the Chicago Board Options
Exchange (``CBOE'') or New York Stock Exchange (``NYSE''); and (2)
eliminating Rules 724 (Guaranteed Accounts) and 725 (Daily

Record of Required Margin). The Exchange also proposes to significantly
shorten Rules 723 (Day Trading and Prohibition on Free-Riding in Cash
Accounts) and 722 (Margin Accounts) to eliminate redundant language
while retaining those margin requirements that are unique to current
Exchange margin rules. At the same time, the Exchange proposes to
retain those margin provisions that are unique to current Exchange
margin rules, particularly those pertaining to foreign currency
options, which only trade on Phlx.
    After careful review of the proposal, the Commission finds that the
proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Act and
the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a national
securities exchange.\5\ In particular, the Commission finds that the
proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\6\ which
requires, among other things that the rules of an exchange be designed
to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to promote
just and equitable principles of trade, to remove impediments to and to
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Commission believes that this proposed rule change will
streamline the Exchange's margin rules commensurate with industry
practice. The Commission notes that the proposed rule change will
require Phlx member organizations to elect, via written notice to the
Exchange, to use and follow the margin rules of either CBOE or NYSE as
they are in effect from time to time. The Commission also notes that
this proposal to incorporate CBOE or NYSE margin rules is similar to
the approach used by the International Securities Exchange and the
Boston Options Exchange requiring their members to elect and follow
CBOE or NYSE margin rules and incorporating such rules by reference
into their own rules.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Exchange Act Release Nos. 48355 (August 22, 2003), 68 FR
50813 (August 22, 2003) (SR-BSE-2002-15); and 49260 (February 14,
2004), 69 FR 8500 (February 24, 2004) (approval, among other things,
of ISE rule incorporating CBOE and NYSE margin rules). The Exchange
has, under separate cover, submitted a letter seeking an exemption
under Section 36 of the Act from the rule filing procedures of
Section 19(b) of the Act with respect to changes to the incorporated
CBOE and NYSE margin rules going forward.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is therefore ordered, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the
Act,\8\ that the proposed rule change (SR-Phlx-2007-33), as modified by
Amendment Nos. 1 and 2, be, and hereby is, approved.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Florence E. Harmon,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-19029 Filed 8-18-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010-01-P