(question 3). Importantly, the actions described in these proposals are
expected to lower PM2.5 and ozone in many areas, and thus
mitigate some pre-existing health risks of air pollution across all
populations evaluated.
3. Outreach and Engagement
    In outreach with potentially vulnerable communities, residents have
voiced two primary concerns. First, there is the concern that their
communities have experienced historically disproportionate burdens from
the environmental impacts of energy production, and second, that as the
sector evolves to use new technologies such as CCS and hydrogen, they
may continue to face disproportionate burdens.
    With regard to CCS, the EPA is proposing that CCS is a component of
the BSER for new base load stationary combustion turbine EGUs, existing
coal-fired steam generating units that intend to operate after 2040,
and large and frequently operated existing stationary combustion
turbine EGUs. The EPA recognizes and has given careful consideration to
the various concerns that potentially vulnerable communities have
raised with regard to the use of CCS in determining that CCS is BSER
for these sources. In the following section, the EPA discusses various
measures undertaken in this rulemaking and elsewhere to address
community concerns on this matter.
    One concern the EPA has heard from stakeholders is that adding CCS
to EGUs can extend the life of an existing coal-fired steam generating
unit, subjecting local residents who have already been negatively
impacted by the operation of the coal-fired steam generating unit to
additional harmful pollution. There are several important factors the
EPA considered in evaluating the emission impact of an upgraded EGU
when determining BSER for these units that intend to operate in the
long term. First, CCS is the most effective add-on pollution control
available for mitigation of GHG emissions from affected sources.
Second, most CCS technologies work much more effectively when the EGU
is emitting the lowest levels of SO2 possible; therefore it
is likely that as part of a CCS installation, companies will improve
their EGUs' SO2 control. Third, a CCS

retrofit may trigger requirements under the major NSR program because
of the potential for an emissions increase of one or more pollutants
due to the additional energy production by the EGU to power the
CO2 capture system. If the source is undergoing major NSR
permitting, the permitting authority would provide an opportunity for
the public to comment on the draft permit, which is another avenue for
affected residents to submit input regarding additional controls that
may be needed to meet best available control technology requirements
for non-GHG pollutants such as NOX.\708\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \708\ The EPA discusses the interactions between CCS and non-GHG
pollutants for existing coal-fired steam generating units in section
X.D.1.a.iii(B) of this preamble.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Communities have also expressed concerns about CO2
pipeline safety and geologic sequestration. As discussed in section
VII.F.3.b.iii of the preamble, supercritical CO2 pipeline
safety is regulated by PHMSA. These regulations protect against
environmental release during transport and PHMSA has announced steps to
further strengthen its safety oversight of supercritical CO2
pipelines, including initiating a new rulemaking to update standards
for supercritical CO2 pipelines and solicited research
proposals to strengthen CO2 pipeline safety.\709\ Geologic
sequestration of CO2 is regulated by the EPA through the UIC
Program under the Safe Drinking Water Act, and through the GHGRP under
the Clean Air Act. UIC Class VI regulations include strong protections
for communities to prevent contamination of underground sources of
drinking water. These regulatory protections include a variety of
measures, including proper site characterization and strict
construction, operating, and monitoring requirements to ensure well and
formation integrity, proper plugging of wells, and long-term project
management and post-injection site care to ensure leakage
prevention.\710\ GHGRP requirements complement and build on UIC
regulations through air-side monitoring and reporting requirements that
provide the EPA and communities with a transparent means of evaluating
the effectiveness of geologic sequestration. These programs work in
combination to provide security and transparency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \709\ PHMSA, ``PHMSA Announces New Safety Measures to Protect
Americans From Carbon Dioxide Pipeline Failures After Satartia, MS
Leak.'' 2022. https://www.phmsa.dot.gov/news/phmsa-announces-new-safety-measures-protect-americans-carbon-dioxide-pipeline-failures.
    \710\ See generally Administrator Michael S. Regan, Underground
Injection Control Class VI Letter to Governors (December 9, 2022),
https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2022-12/AD.Regan_.GOVS_.Sig_.Class%20VI.12-9-22.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final concern the EPA has heard from stakeholders is about a
lack of opportunity for impacted communities to voice opinions about
projects like this that affect them. Recognizing the important stake
that local residents have in decisions regarding EGUs in their
communities, the EPA expects that states will address facility-specific
concerns about how to responsibly deploy CCS and any other potential
control strategies in the course of meaningful engagement under the
proposed emission guidelines for existing steam generating units and
existing combustion turbines, as discussed in section XII.F.1.b of the
preamble. State plans should specifically ensure that community members
have an opportunity to share their input if they reside near a fossil
fuel-fired steam generating unit that plans to install CCS to meet the
requirements of these proposed rules regarding how to responsibly
deploy this technology.
    With regard to the decision to construct a new combustion turbine,
most of the safeguards outlined above for CCS retrofits apply. While
meaningful engagement applies under emission guidelines to existing
sources, there exists an opportunity for community engagement for new
sources as part of the major NSR permitting process, in the event that
the source triggers major NSR requirements. While new combustion
turbines that co-fire with hydrogen may trigger major NSR, there are
cases in which they are less likely to trigger major NSR, such as: (1)
If the new combustion turbine is proposed at an existing facility and
the facility is able to reduce its emissions more than the emissions
increase from the combustion turbine (e.g., if the combustion turbine
replaces an existing coal-fired EGU and the facility has emission
reduction credits from the shutdown unit), or (2) if the emissions from
the new combustion turbine are low enough to not trigger major NSR.
    The EPA further notes that hydrogen production presents a unique
set of potential issues for vulnerable communities. During the February
27th National Tribal Energy Roundtable Webinar, one of the primary
concerns articulated was the potential for fossil-derived hydrogen to
essentially extend the life of petrochemical industries already
creating localized pollution loading. Since hydrogen is non-toxic, and
it does not produce carbon dioxide when burned, the inclusion of
hydrogen in combustion turbine operations will lower overall health
risks compared with hydrocarbons. Perceived community risks with
hydrogen related to storage and transportation include its
combustibility and propensity to leak due to extremely low molecular
weight. Despite concerns about hydrogen, its low molecular weight
ensures that it dissipates and disperses quickly when released
outdoors, reducing unintended combustion risks compared with other
fuels.\711\ Adequate ventilation and leak detection are available to
ensure safety and are important elements in the design of hydrogen
systems. Concerns around hydrogen leaks can be mitigated with hydrogen
monitoring systems combined with adequate ventilation and leak
detection equipment, including special flame detectors.\712\ Further,
building and operational codes and standards developed specifically for
hydrogen's properties can minimize risks around hydrogen usage in a
community.\713\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \711\ Department of Energy, Safe Use of Hydrogen https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/safe-use-hydrogen.
    \712\ Ibid.
    \713\ Department of Energy, Safety Codes and Standards https://www.energy.gov/eere/fuelcells/safety-codes-and-standards-basics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    New combustion turbine models designed to combust hydrogen, and
those potentially being retrofit to combust hydrogen, may be co-located
with electrolyzers that produce the hydrogen the facility will use. In
such instances, water scarcity could be exacerbated in some areas by
the freshwater demands of electrolytic hydrogen production, which could
pose a particular challenge for vulnerable communities. As such,
electrolyzer siting will need to take water availability into account.
Examples for sustainable siting for electrolyzers are emerging in
Europe, which has begun to employ Sustainable Value Methodology
designed to be sensitive to water access and availability and includes,
``decision-making support, combining economic, environmental and social
criteria''.\714\ We also expect advances in electrolytic technology
over time to reduce water demand, including the potential to enabling
sea-water usage in electrolyzers.\715\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \714\ Journal of Cleaner Production, Volume 315, 15 September
2021, 128124, ``Water Availability and Water Usage Solutions for
Electrolysis in Hydrogen Production'' Simoes, Sophia et al., https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652621023428.
    \715\ Sun, F., Qin, J., Wang, Z. et al. Energy-saving hydrogen
production by chlorine-free hybrid seawater splitting coupling
hydrazine degradation. Nat Commun 12, 4182 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-24529-3.

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

F. Grid Reliability Considerations

    The requirements for sources and states set forth in these proposed
actions were developed cognizant of concerns about an electric grid
under transition, and related reliability considerations. As previously
stated, a variety of important influences have led to notable changes
in the generation mix and expectations of how the power sector will
evolve. These trends have generally put existing high-emitting
generators under greater economic pressure and will continue to do so
even absent any EPA action pursuant to CAA section 111, and that is
manifest in various economic projections and modeling of the electric
power system. Recent legislation, including the IIJA, the IRA, and
State policies have amplified these trends, with continued change
expected for the existing fleet of EGUs. Moreover, many regions of the
country have experienced a significant increase in the frequency and
severity of extreme weather events--events that are notably projected
to worsen if GHG emissions are not adequately controlled. These events
have impacted energy infrastructure and both the demand for and supply
of electricity. A wide range of stakeholders including power
generators, grid operators and State and Federal regulators are
actively engaged in ensuring the reliability of the electric power
system is maintained and enhanced in the face of these changes.
    As explained in this preamble, these proposed actions take account
of the rapidly evolving power sector and extensive input received from
power companies and other stakeholders on the future of these regulated
sources, while ensuring that new natural gas-fired combustion turbines
and existing steam EGUs achieve significant and cost-effective
reductions in GHG emissions through the application of adequately
demonstrated control technologies. Preserving the ability of power
companies and grid operators to maintain system reliability has been a
paramount consideration in the development of these proposed actions.
Accordingly, these proposed rules include significant design elements
that are intended to allow the power sector continued resource and
operational flexibility, and to facilitate long-term planning during
this dynamic period. Among other things, these elements include
subcategories of new natural gas-fired combustion turbines that allow
for the stringency of standards of performance to vary by capacity
factor; subcategories for existing steam EGUs that are based on
operating horizons and fuel reflecting the request of industry
stakeholders; compliance deadlines for both new and existing EGUs that
provide ample lead time to plan; and proposed State plan flexibilities.
In addition, this preamble discusses EPA's intention to exercise its
enforcement discretion where needed to address any potential instances
in which individual EGUs may need to temporarily operate for
reliability reasons, and to set forth clear and transparent
expectations for administrative compliance orders to ensure that
compliance with these proposed rules can be achieved without impairing
the ability of power companies and grid operators to maintain
reliability. As such, these proposed rules provide the flexibility
needed to avoid reliability concerns while still securing the pollution
reductions consistent with section 111 of the CAA.
    To support these proposed actions, the EPA has conducted an
analysis of resource adequacy based upon power sector modeling and
projections of the standards on existing steam generating units, and
the first two phases of the standards on new combustion turbines, as
well as the results of the spreadsheet-based analysis of the standards
on existing combustion turbines and the third phase of the standards on
new combustion turbines, that can be found in the RIA. Any potential
impact of these proposed actions is dependent upon a myriad of
decisions and compliance choices source owners and operators may
pursue. It is important to recognize that the proposed rules provide
multiple flexibilities that preserve the ability of responsible
authorities to maintain electric reliability. While not explicitly
modeled using IPM, the proposed emission guidelines for existing
natural gas-fired EGUs are estimated to have very little incremental
impact on resource adequacy. The guidelines would affect a subset of
the total natural gas fleet, and units that install CCS are still able
to maintain capacity accreditation values (after accounting for
capacity de-rates). Moreover, units that operate below 50 percent
capacity factor annually (and are not subject to the CCS requirement)
would still be able to operate at higher levels during times of greater
demand, thereby maintaining their capacity accreditation values.
    The results presented in the Resource Adequacy Analysis TSD, which
is available in the docket, show that the projected impacts of the
proposed rules on power system operations, under conditions preserving
resource adequacy, are modest and manageable. For the specific
scenarios analyzed in the RIA, the implementation of the proposed rules
can be achieved while maintaining resource adequacy even as shifts in
existing and new capacity occur. Retirements are offset by additions,
along with reserve transfers where/when needed, which demonstrates that
ample compliance pathways exist for sources while preserving resource
adequacy.
    The EPA routinely consults with the DOE and FERC on electric
reliability and intends to continue to do so as it develops and
implements a final rule. This ongoing engagement will be strengthened
with routine and comprehensive communication between the agencies under
the DOE-EPA Joint Memorandum of Understanding on Interagency
Communication and Consultation on Electric Reliability signed on March
8, 2023.\716\ The memorandum will provide greater interagency
engagement on electric reliability issues at a time of significant
dynamism in the power sector, allowing the EPA and the DOE to use their
considerable expertise in various aspects of grid reliability to
support the ability of Federal and State regulators, grid operators,
regional reliability entities, and power companies to continue to
deliver a high standard of reliable electric service. As the power
sector continues to change and as the agencies carry out their
respective authorities, the agencies intend to continue to engage and
collectively monitor, share information, and consult on policy and
program decisions to assure the continued reliability of the bulk power
system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \716\ Joint Memorandum of Understanding on Interagency
Communication and Consultation on Electric Reliability (March 8,
2023). https://www.epa.gov/power-sector/electric-reliability-mou.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the EPA observes that power companies, grid operators,
and State public utility commissions have well-established procedures
in place to preserve electric reliability in response to changes in the
generating portfolio, and expects that those procedures will continue
to be effective in addressing compliance decisions that power companies
may make over the extended time period for implementation of these
proposed rules. In response to any regulatory requirement, affected
sources will have to take some type of action to reduce emissions,
which will generally have costs. Some EGU owners may conclude that, all
else being equal, retiring a particular EGU is likely to be the more
economic option from the perspective of the unit's customers and/or
owners because there are better opportunities for using the capital
than investing it in new emissions controls at

the unit. Such a retirement decision will require the unit's owner to
follow the processes put in place by the relevant RTO, balancing
authority, or State regulator to protect electric system reliability.
These processes typically include analysis of the potential impacts of
the proposed EGU retirement on electrical system reliability,
identification of options for mitigating any identified adverse
impacts, and, in some cases, temporary provision of additional revenues
to support the EGU's continued operation until longer-term mitigation
measures can be put in place. In some rare instances where the
reliability of the system is jeopardized due to extreme weather events
or other unforeseen emergencies, authorities can request a temporary
reprieve from environmental requirements and constraints (through DOE)
in order to meet electric demand and maintain reliability. These
proposed actions do not interfere with these already available
provisions, but rather provides a long-term pathway for sources to
develop and implement a proper plan to reduce emissions while
maintaining adequate supplies of electricity.

XV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    These actions were submitted to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review under Section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866. Any
changes made in response to recommendations received as part of
Executive Order 12866 review have been documented in the docket. The
EPA prepared an analysis of the potential costs and benefits associated
with these actions. This analysis, ``Regulatory Impact Analysis for the
Proposed New Source Performance Standards for Greenhouse Gas Emissions
from New, Modified, and Reconstructed Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric
Generating Units; Emission Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from
Existing Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric Generating Units; and Repeal of the
Affordable Clean Energy Rule,'' is available in the docket.
    Table 10 presents the estimated present values (PV) and equivalent
annualized values (EAV) of the projected climate benefits, health
benefits, compliance costs, and net benefits of the proposed rule in
2019 dollars discounted to 2024. This analysis covers the impacts of
the proposed standards for new combustion turbines and for existing
steam generating EGUs, and does not include the impact of the proposed
standards for existing combustion turbines and the third phase of the
proposed standards for new combustion turbines. The estimated monetized
net benefits are the projected monetized benefits minus the projected
monetized costs of the proposed rules.
    The projected climate benefits in table 8 are based on estimates of
the social cost of carbon (SC-CO2) at a 3 percent discount
rate and are discounted using a 3 percent discount rate to obtain the
PV and EAV estimates in the table. Under E.O. 12866, the EPA is
directed to consider the costs and benefits of its actions.
Accordingly, in addition to the projected climate benefits of the
proposals from anticipated reductions in CO2 emissions, the
projected monetized health benefits include those related to public
health associated with projected reductions in fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) and ozone concentrations. The projected health
benefits are associated with several point estimates and are presented
at real discount rates of 3 and 7 percent. The power industry's
compliance costs are represented in this analysis as the change in
electric power generation costs between the baseline and policy
scenarios. In simple terms, these costs are an estimate of the
increased power industry expenditures required to implement the
proposed requirements.
    These results present an incomplete overview of the potential
effects of the proposals because important categories of benefits--
including benefits from reducing HAP emissions--were not monetized and
are therefore not reflected in the benefit-cost tables. The EPA
anticipates that taking non-monetized effects into account would show
the proposals to have a greater net benefit than this table reflects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \717\ This analysis pertains to the proposed standards for new
combustion turbines and for existing steam generating EGUs and does
not include the impact of the proposed standards for existing
combustion turbines and the third phase of the proposed standards
for new combustion turbines.

    Table 10--Projected Monetized Benefits, Compliance Costs, and Net
         Benefits of the Proposed Rules, 2024 Through 2042 \717\
                [Billions 2019$, discounted to 2024] \a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            3% Discount     7% Discount
                                               rate            rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Present Value:
    Climate Benefits \c\................             $30             $30
    Health Benefits \d\.................              68              44
    Compliance Costs....................              14              10
    Net Benefits \e\....................              85              64
Equivalent Annualized Value \b\:
    Climate Benefits \c\................             2.1             2.1
    Health Benefits \d\.................             4.8             4.3
    Compliance Costs....................            0.95            0.98
    Net Benefits \e\....................             5.9             5.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Values have been rounded to two significant figures. Rows may not
  appear to sum correctly due to rounding.
\b\ The annualized present value of costs and benefits are calculated
  over the 20-year period from 2024 to 2042.
\c\ Climate benefits are based on changes (reductions) in CO2 emissions.
  Climate benefits in this table are based on estimates of the SC-CO2 at
  a 3 percent discount rate and are discounted using a 3 percent
  discount rate to obtain the PV and EAV estimates in the table. The EPA
  does not have a single central SC-CO2 point estimate. We emphasize the
  importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all
  four SC-CO2 estimates (model average at 2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5
  percent discount rates; 95th percentile at 3 percent discount rate).
  As discussed in section 4 of the RIA, consideration of climate
  benefits calculated using discount rates below 3 percent, including 2
  percent and lower, is also warranted when discounting
  intergenerational impacts.

\d\ The EPA notes that while OMB Circular A-4, as published in 2003,
  recommends using 3 percent and 7 percent discount rates as ``default''
  values, Circular A-4 also recognizes that ``special ethical
  considerations arise when comparing benefits and costs across
  generations,'' and Circular A-4 acknowledges that analyses may
  appropriately ``discount future costs and consumption benefits . . .
  at a lower rate than for intragenerational analysis.'' Therefore,
  climate benefits remain discounted at 3 percent in this benefits
  analysis.
\e\ The projected monetized health benefits include those related to
  public health associated with reductions in PM2.5 and ozone
  concentrations. The projected health benefits are associated with
  several point estimates and are presented at real discount rates of 3
  and 7 percent.
\f\ Several categories of benefits remain unmonetized and are thus not
  reflected in the table. Non-monetized benefits include important
  climate, health, welfare, and water quality benefits and are described
  in RIA Table 4-6.

    As shown in table 10, the proposed rules are projected to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions in the form of CO2, producing a
projected PV of monetized climate benefits of about $30 billion, with
an EAV of about $2.1 billion using the SC-CO2 discounted at
3 percent. The proposed rules are also projected to reduce
PM2.5 and ozone concentrations, producing a projected PV of
monetized health benefits of about $68 billion, with an EAV of about
$4.8 billion discounted at 3 percent.
    The PV of the projected compliance costs are $14 billion, with an
EAV of about $0.95 billion discounted at 3 percent. Combining the
projected benefits with the projected compliance costs yields a net
benefit PV estimate of about $85 billion and EAV of about $5.9 billion
at a 3 percent discount rate.
    At a 7 percent discount rate, the proposed rules are expected to
generate projected PV of monetized health benefits of about $44
billion, with an EAV of about $4.3 billion. Climate benefits remain
discounted at 3 percent in this net benefits analysis. Thus, the
proposed rules would generate a PV of monetized benefits of about $74
billion, with an EAV of about $6.4 billion discounted at a 7 percent
rate. The PV of the projected compliance costs are about $10 billion,
with an EAV of $0.98 billion discounted at 7 percent. Combining the
projected benefits with the projected compliance costs yields a net
benefit PV estimate of about $64 billion and an EAV of about $5.4
billion discounted at 7 percent.
    The EPA has developed a separate analysis of the proposed standards
for existing combustion turbines and third phase of the proposed
standards for new natural gas-fired EGUs over the 2024 to 2042 period.
This analysis includes estimated compliance costs and climate benefits,
and is located in Section 8 of the RIA. The PV of the compliance costs,
discounted at the 3-percent rate, is estimated to be between about $5.7
to 10 billion, with an EAV of between about $0.40 to 0.70 billion. At
the 7 percent discount rate, the PV of the compliance costs is
estimated to be between about $ 3.5 to 6.2 billion, with an EAV of
about $ 0.34 to 0.60 billion. The PV of the climate benefits,
discounted at the 3-percent rate, is estimated to be between about $10
to 20 billion, with an EAV of between about $0.70 to 1.4 billion.
    As discussed in section XIV of this preamble, the monetized
benefits estimates provide an incomplete overview of the beneficial
impacts of the proposals. In particular, the monetized climate benefits
are incomplete and an underestimate as explained in section 4.2 of the
RIA. In addition, important health, welfare, and water quality benefits
anticipated under these proposed rules are not quantified or monetized.
The EPA anticipates that taking non-monetized effects into account
would show the proposals to have greater benefits than the estimates in
the preamble and RIA reflect. Simultaneously, the estimates of
compliance costs used in the net benefits analysis may provide an
incomplete characterization of the true costs of the rule. The balance
of unquantified benefits and costs is ambiguous but is unlikely to
change the result that the benefits of the proposals exceed the costs
by billions of dollars annually.
    We also note that the RIA follows the EPA's historic practice of
using a technology-rich partial equilibrium model of the electricity
and related fuel sectors to estimate the incremental costs of producing
electricity under the requirements of proposed and final major EPA
power sector rules. In Appendix B of the RIA for these actions, the EPA
has also included an economy-wide analysis that considers additional
facets of the economic response to the proposed rules, including the
full resource requirements of the expected compliance pathways, some of
which are paid for through subsidies in the partial equilibrium
analysis. The social cost estimates in the economy-wide analysis and
discussed in Appendix B of the RIA are still far below the projected
benefits of the proposed rules.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

1. 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart TTTT
    This action does not impose any new information collection burden
under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection
activities contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB
control number 2060-0685.
2. 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart TTTTa
    The information collection activities in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the PRA. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document
that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 2771.01. You can
find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly
summarized here.
    Respondents/affected entities: Owners and operators of fossil-fuel
fired EGUs.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory.
    Estimated number of respondents: 2.
    Frequency of response: Annual.
    Total estimated burden: 110 hours (per year). Burden is defined at
5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $14,000 (per year), includes $0 annualized
capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
    Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the
accuracy of the provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified at
the beginning of this rule. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related
comments in the final rule. You may also send your ICR-related comments
to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs using the
interface at www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular
information collection by selecting ``Currently under Review--Open for
Public Comments'' or by using the search function. OMB must receive
comments no later than July 24, 2023.
3. 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart UUUUb
    The information collection activities in this proposed rule have
been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) under the PRA. The Information Collection Request (ICR) document
that the EPA prepared has been assigned EPA ICR number 2770.01. You can
find a copy of the ICR in the docket for this rule, and it is briefly
summarized here.

    This rule imposes specific requirements on State governments with
existing fossil fuel-fired steam generating units. The information
collection requirements are based on the recordkeeping and reporting
burden associated with developing, implementing, and enforcing a plan
to limit GHG emissions from existing EGUs. These recordkeeping and
reporting requirements are specifically authorized by CAA section 114
(42 U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to the EPA pursuant to the
recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a claim of
confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to Agency policies set
forth in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
    The annual burden for this collection of information for the states
(averaged over the first 3 years following promulgation) is estimated
to be 104,000 hours at a total annual labor cost of $13.1 million. The
annual burden for the Federal government associated with the State
collection of information (averaged over the first 3 years following
promulgation) is estimated to be 27,347 hours at a total annual labor
cost of $1.8 million. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Respondents/affected entities: States with one or more designated
facilities covered under subpart UUUUb.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory.
    Estimated number of respondents: 50.
    Frequency of response: Once.
    Total estimated burden: 104,000 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $13,163,689, includes $36,750 annualized
capital or operation & maintenance costs.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for the
EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.
    Submit your comments on the Agency's need for this information, the
accuracy of the provided burden estimates and any suggested methods for
minimizing respondent burden to the EPA using the docket identified at
the beginning of this rule. The EPA will respond to any ICR-related
comments in the final rule. You may also send your ICR-related comments
to OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs using the
interface at www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular
information collection by selecting ``Currently under Review--Open for
Public Comments'' or by using the search function. OMB must receive
comments no later than July 24, 2023.
4. 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart UUUUa
    This proposed rule does not impose an information collection burden
under the PRA.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that these actions will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. The
small entities subject to the requirements of the NSPS are private
companies, investor-owned utilities, cooperatives, municipalities, and
sub-divisions, that would seek to build and operate stationary
combustion turbines in the future. The Agency has determined that seven
small entities may be so impacted, and may experience an impact of 0
percent to 0.9 percent of revenues in 2035. Details of this analysis
are presented in section 5.3 of the RIA.
    The EPA started the Small Business Advocacy Review (SBAR) panel
process prior to determining if the NSPS would have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
RFA. The EPA conducted an initial outreach meeting with small entity
representatives on December 14, 2022. The EPA sought input from
representatives of small entities while developing the proposed NSPS
which enabled the EPA to hear directly from these representatives about
the regulation of GHG emissions from EGUs. The purpose of the meeting
was to provide general background on the NSPS rulemaking, answer
questions, and solicit input. Fifteen various small entities that
potentially would be affected by the NSPS attended the meeting. The
representatives included small entity municipalities, cooperatives, and
industry professional organizations. When the EPA determined the NSPS
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities under the RFA, the EPA did not proceed with convening
the SBAR panel.
    Emission guidelines will not impose any requirements on small
entities. Specifically, emission guidelines established under CAA
section 111(d) do not impose any requirements on regulated entities
and, thus, will not have a significant economic impact upon a
substantial number of small entities. After emission guidelines are
promulgated, states establish standards on existing sources, and it is
those State requirements that could potentially impact small entities.
    The analysis in the accompanying RIA is consistent with the
analysis of the analogous situation arising when the EPA establishes
NAAQS, which do not impose any requirements on regulated entities. As
here, any impact of a NAAQS on small entities would only arise when
states take subsequent action to maintain and/or achieve the NAAQS
through their State implementation plans. See American Trucking Assoc.
v. EPA, 175 F.3d 1029, 1043-45 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (NAAQS do not have
significant impacts upon small entities because NAAQS themselves impose
no regulations upon small entities).
    The EPA is aware that there is substantial interest in the proposed
rules among small entities and invites comments on all aspects of the
proposals and their impacts, including potential impacts on small
entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA)

    The proposed NSPS contain a Federal mandate under UMRA, 2 U.S.C.
1531-1538, that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for
the private sector in any one year. The proposed NSPS do not contain an
unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C.
1531-1538 for State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate.
Accordingly, the EPA prepared, under section 202 of UMRA, a written
statement of the benefit-cost analysis, which is in section XIV of this
preamble and in the RIA.
    The proposed repeal of the ACE Rule and emission guidelines do not
contain an unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and do not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. The proposed emission guidelines do not impose any
direct compliance requirements on regulated entities, apart from the
requirement for states to develop plans to implement the guidelines
under CAA section 111(d) for designated EGUs. The burden for states to
develop CAA section 111(d) plans in the 24-month period following
promulgation of the emission guidelines was estimated and is listed in
section XV.B, but this burden is estimated to be below $100 million in
any one year. As explained in section XII.F.6, the proposed emission
guidelines do not impose specific requirements on Tribal governments
that have designated EGUs located in their area of Indian country.
    The proposed actions are not subject to the requirements of section
203 of UMRA because they contain no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
    In light of the interest in these rules among governmental
entities, the EPA

initiated consultation with governmental entities. The EPA invited the
following 10 national organizations representing State and local
elected officials to a virtual meeting on September 22, 2022: (1)
National Governors Association, (2) National Conference of State
Legislatures, (3) Council of State Governments, (4) National League of
Cities, (5) U.S. Conference of Mayors, (6) National Association of
Counties, (7) International City/County Management Association, (8)
National Association of Towns and Townships, (9) County Executives of
America, and (10) Environmental Council of States. These 10
organizations representing elected State and local officials have been
identified by the EPA as the ``Big 10'' organizations appropriate to
contact for purpose of consultation with elected officials. Also, the
EPA invited air and utility professional groups who may have State and
local government members, including the Association of Air Pollution
Control Agencies, National Association of Clean Air Agencies, and
American Public Power Association, Large Public Power Council, National
Rural Electric Cooperative Association, and National Association of
Regulatory Utility Commissioners to participate in the meeting. The
purpose of the consultation was to provide general background on these
rulemakings, answer questions, and solicit input from State and local
governments. Subsequent to the September 22, 2022, meeting, the EPA
received letters from five organizations. These letters were submitted
to the pre-proposal non-rulemaking docket. See Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2022-0723-0013, EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0723-0016, EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0723-
0017, EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0723-0020, and EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0723-0021. For
summary of the UMRA consultation see the memorandum in the docket
titled, Federalism Pre-Proposal Consultation Summary.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    The proposed NSPS and the proposed repeal of the ACE Rule do not
have federalism implications. These actions will not have substantial
direct effects 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.
    The EPA has concluded that the proposed emission guidelines may
have federalism implications, because they may impose substantial
direct compliance costs on State or local governments, and the Federal
Government will not provide the funds necessary to pay these costs.
    Any potential federalism implications arise from the provisions of
CAA section 111(d)(1), which direct the EPA to ``prescribe regulations
. . . under which each State shall submit to the [EPA] a [state] plan .
. .'' establishing standards of performance for sources in the State.
As discussed in the Supporting Statement found in the docket for this
rulemaking, the development of State plans will entail many hours of
staff time to develop and coordinate programs for compliance with the
proposed emission guidelines, as well as time to work with State
legislatures as appropriate, and develop a plan submittal.
    Although the direct compliance costs may not be substantial, the
EPA nonetheless elected to consult with representatives of State and
local governments in the process of developing these actions to permit
them to have meaningful and timely input into their development. The
EPA's consultation regarded planned actions for the NSPS and emission
guidelines. The EPA invited the following 10 national organizations
representing State and local elected officials to a virtual meeting on
September 22, 2022: (1) National Governors Association, (2) National
Conference of State Legislatures, (3) Council of State Governments, (4)
National League of Cities, (5) U.S. Conference of Mayors, (6) National
Association of Counties, (7) International City/County Management
Association, (8) National Association of Towns and Townships, (9)
County Executives of America, and (10) Environmental Council of States.
These 10 organizations representing elected State and local officials
have been identified by the EPA as the ``Big 10'' organizations
appropriate to contact for purpose of consultation with elected
officials. Also, the EPA invited air and utility professional groups
who may have State and local government members, including the
Association of Air Pollution Control Agencies, National Association of
Clean Air Agencies, and American Public Power Association, Large Public
Power Council, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, and
National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners to participate
in the meeting. The purpose of the consultation was to provide general
background on these rulemakings, answer questions, and solicit input
from State and local governments. Subsequent to the September 22, 2022,
meeting, the EPA received letters from five organizations. These
letters were submitted to the pre-proposal non-rulemaking docket. See
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0723-0013, EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0723-0016,
EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0723-0017, EPA-HQ-OAR-2022-0723-0020, and EPA-HQ-OAR-
2022-0723-0021. For a summary of the Federalism consultation see the
memorandum in the docket titled Federalism Pre-Proposal Consultation
Summary. A detailed Federalism Summary Impact Statement (FSIS)
describing the most pressing issues raised in pre-proposal and post-
proposal comments will be forthcoming with the final emission
guidelines, as required by section 6(b) of Executive Order 13132. In
the spirit of E.O. 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote
communications between State and local governments, the EPA
specifically solicits comment on these proposed actions from State and
local officials.

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    These actions do not have Tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175. The proposed NSPS would impose requirements on
owners and operators of new or reconstructed stationary combustion
turbines and emission guidelines would not impose direct requirements
on Tribal governments. Tribes are not required to develop plans to
implement the emission guidelines developed under CAA section 111(d)
for designated EGUs. The EPA is aware of six fossil fuel-fired steam
generating units located in Indian country but is not aware of any
fossil fuel-fired steam generating units owned or operated by Tribal
entities. The EPA notes that the proposed emission guidelines do not
directly impose specific requirements on EGU sources, including those
located in Indian country, but before developing any standards for
sources on Tribal land, the EPA would consult with leaders from
affected Tribes. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to these
actions.
    Because the EPA is aware of Tribal interest in these proposed rules
and consistent with the EPA Policy on Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribes, the EPA offered government-to-government
consultation with Tribes and conducted stakeholder engagement.
    The EPA will hold additional meetings with Tribal environmental
staff to inform them of the content of these proposed rules as well as
offer government-to-government consultation with Tribes. The EPA
specifically

solicits additional comment on these proposed rules from Tribal
officials.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) directs Federal
agencies to include an evaluation of the health and safety effects of
the planned regulation on children in Federal health and safety
standards and explain why the regulation is preferable to potentially
effective and reasonably feasible alternatives. This action is not
subject to Executive Order 13045 because the EPA does not believe the
environmental health risks or safety risks addressed by this action
present a disproportionate risk to children. The EPA evaluated the
health benefits of the CO2, ozone and PM2.5
emissions reductions and the results of this evaluation are contained
in the RIA and are available in the docket. The EPA believes that the
PM2.5-related, ozone-related, and CO2-related
benefits projected under these proposed rules will improve children's
health. Additionally, the PM2.5 and ozone EJ exposure
analyses in section 6 of the RIA suggests that nationally, children
(ages 0-17) will experience at least as great a reduction in
PM2.5 and ozone exposures as adults (ages 18-64) in 2028,
2030, 2035 and 2040 under all regulatory alternatives of these
rulemakings.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    These actions, which are significant regulatory actions under
Executive Order 12866, are likely to have a significant adverse effect
on the supply, distribution or use of energy. The EPA has prepared a
Statement of Energy Effects for these action as follows. This analysis
pertains to the proposed standards for new combustion turbines and for
existing steam generating EGUs, and does not include the impact of the
proposed standards for existing combustion turbines and the third phase
of the proposed standards for new combustion turbines. The EPA
estimates a 0.2 percent increase in retail electricity prices on
average, across the contiguous U.S. in 2035, and a 28 percent reduction
in coal-fired electricity generation in 2035 as a result of these
actions. The EPA projects that utility power sector delivered natural
gas prices will decrease 2.4 percent in 2035. For more information on
the estimated energy effects, please refer sections 5.1 and 8.3.3 of
the RIA, which is in the public docket.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) and 1 CFR
Part 51

    These proposed actions involve technical standards. Therefore, the
EPA conducted searches for the New Source Performance Standards for
Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New, Modified, and Reconstructed Fossil
Fuel-Fired Electric Generating Units; Emission Guidelines for
Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Existing Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric
Generating Units; and Repeal of the Affordable Clean Energy Rule
through the Enhanced National Standards Systems Network (NSSN) Database
managed by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). Searches
were conducted for EPA Method 19 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. No
applicable voluntary consensus standards were identified for EPA Method
19. For additional information, please see the March 23, 2023,
memorandum titled, Voluntary Consensus Standard Results for New Source
Performance Standards for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New, Modified,
and Reconstructed Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric Generating Units; Emission
Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Existing Fossil Fuel-Fired
Electric Generating Units; and Repeal of the Affordable Clean Energy
Rule.
    The EPA welcomes comments on this aspect of the proposed
rulemakings and, specifically, invites the public to identify
potentially applicable VCS and to explain why such standards should be
used in these regulations.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629; February 16, 1994) directs
Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by
law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying
and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and
activities on minority populations (people of color and/or Indigenous
peoples) and low-income populations.
    For new sources constructed after the date of publication of this
proposed action under CAA section 111(b), the EPA believes that it is
not practicable to assess whether the human health or environmental
conditions that exist prior to this action result in disproportionate
and adverse effects on people of color, low-income populations and/or
Indigenous peoples, because the location and number of new sources is
unknown.
    For existing sources of this proposed action under CAA section
111(d), the EPA believes that the human health or environmental
conditions that exist prior to this action result in or have the
potential to result in disproportionate and adverse human health or
environmental effects on people of color, low-income populations, and/
or Indigenous peoples. The EPA believes that this proposed action is
not likely to change disproportionate and adverse PM2.5
exposure impacts on people of color, low-income populations, Indigenous
peoples, and/or other potential populations of concern evaluated in the
future analytical years. The EPA also believes that this proposed
action is not likely to change disproportionate and adverse ozone
exposure impacts on people of color, low-income populations, Indigenous
peoples, and/or other potential populations of concern evaluated in
2028, 2035, and 2040. However, in the analytical year of 2030, this
action is likely to slightly increase existing national level
disproportionate and adverse ozone exposure impacts on Asian
populations, Hispanic populations, and those linguistically isolated.
    The EPA believes that it is not practicable to assess whether the
GHG impacts associated with this action are likely to result in a
change in disproportionate and adverse effects on people of color, low-
income populations and/or Indigenous peoples. However, the EPA believes
that the projected total cumulative power sector reduction of 617
million metric tons of CO2 emissions between 2028 and 2042
will have a beneficial effect on populations at risk of climate change
effects/impacts. Research indicates that some communities of color,
specifically populations defined jointly by ethnic/racial
characteristics and geographic location, may be uniquely vulnerable to
climate change health impacts in the U.S. See sections VII, X, and XIV
of this preamble for further information regarding GHG controls and
emission reductions.

Michael S. Regan,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2023-10141 Filed 5-22-23; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: February 10, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 26)]
[Notices]
[Page 6692-6693]
[DOCID:fr10fe09-143]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

Petition for Waiver of Compliance

    In accordance with Part 211 of Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), notice is hereby given that the Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA) received a request for a waiver of compliance from certain
requirements of its safety standards. The individual petition is
described below, including the party seeking relief, the regulatory
provisions involved, the nature of the relief being requested, and the
petitioner's arguments in favor of relief.

Union Pacific Railroad Company

[Docket Number FRA-2008-0166]

    The Union Pacific Railroad Company (UP) seeks a waiver of
compliance from certain provisions of 49 CFR Part 218, Railroad
Operating Practices. Specifically, UP is requesting a waiver of Blue
Signal Requirements as prescribed in 49 CFR 218.25 Workers on a main
track, in Kansas City, KS, and Kansas City, MO. These tracks are in the
middle of the Kansas City facilities and are used for functions
normally performed on yard tracks. Trains passing through the Kansas
City

Terminal stop for fuel, locomotive inspection, or adding or removing
power from the train. To perform this work on the main track, UP must
provide blue signal protection under 49 CFR 218.25. This request is for
the following track locations:
     Main 1 and Main 2 between Manchester and Troost (MX279-
MX281).
     Main 1 and Main 2 at 18th St. between KX004 and KX006.
     Mainline at 10th St. (KX287-KX289).
    UP is requesting flexibility to treat these main tracks at the
Kansas City facilities as tracks other than main tracks so they can
have the option of protecting its employees working on, under, or
between rolling equipment in accordance with Sec.  218.25 Workers on a
main track, or Sec.  218.27 Workers on track other than main track, or
a combination of both. UP believes that the safest and most efficient
method of protecting its employees in the Kansas City facilities is
through the use of a combination of blue signal protection and remotely
controlled switches. UP believes that this request is similar to a
waiver originally granted to the SP at El Paso, TX, and renewed to UP
under Docket Number FRA-2000-7669. UP states they have operated under
the requirements of that waiver without any adverse effect on safety of
operations and would like to have the same conditions for this request.
    Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings
by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate
scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since
the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party
desires an opportunity for oral comment, they should notify FRA, in
writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for
their request.
    All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the
appropriate docket number (e.g., Waiver Petition Docket Number FRA-
2008-0166) and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
     Web site: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: Docket Operations Facility, U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., W12-140, Washington, DC
20590.
     Hand Delivery: 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Room W12-140,
Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
    Communications received within 45 days of the date of this notice
will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments
received after that date will be considered as far as practicable. All
written communications concerning these proceedings are available for
examination during regular business hours (9 a.m.-5 p.m.) at the above
facility. All documents in the public docket are also available for
inspection and copying on the Internet at the docket facility's Web
site at http://www.regulations.gov.
    Anyone is able to search the electronic form of any written
communications and 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 DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal
Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages
19477-78).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on January 30, 2009.
Grady C. Cothen, Jr.,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Safety Standards and Program
Development.
[FR Doc. E9-2382 Filed 2-9-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


[Federal Register: June 29, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 124)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 37308-37309]
[DOCID:fr29jn10-15]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2010-0237; FRL-9167-6]

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Yolo-
Solano Air Quality Management District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing approval of revisions to the Yolo-Solano Air
Quality Management District (YSAQMD) portion of the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions were proposed in the Federal
Register on April 16, 2010 and concern volatile organic compound (VOC),
oxides of nitrogen (NOx), oxides of sulfur (SOx), particulate matter
(PM), and carbon monoxide (CO) emissions from the permanent curtailment
of burning rice straw. We are approving a local rule that regulates
these emission sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA
or the Act).

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective on July 29, 2010.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2010-0237 for
this action. The index to the docket is available electronically at
http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents in the
docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly
available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material),
and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI).
To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment
during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lily Wong, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-
4114<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Proposed Action
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. EPA Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Proposed Action

    On April 16, 2010 (75 FR 19923), EPA proposed to approve the
following rule into the California SIP.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Local agency                  Rule No.            Rule title             Adopted        Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YSAQMD................................            3.21  Rice Straw Emission             12/10/08        03/17/09
                                                         Reduction Credits.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We proposed to approve this rule because we determined that it
complied with the relevant CAA requirements. Our proposed action
contains more information on the rule and our evaluation.

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period.
During this period, we did not receive any comments.

III. EPA Action

    No comments were submitted that change our assessment that the
submitted rule complies with the relevant CAA requirements. Therefore,
as authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully approving
this rule into the California SIP.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act 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 Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

    In addition, this rule does not have Tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 30, 2010. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: June 14, 2010.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.

0
Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart F--California

0
2. Section 52.220, is amended by adding paragraph (c)(363)(i)(C) to
read as follows:

Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (363) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (C) Yolo Solano Air Quality Management District
    (1) Rule 3.21, ``Rice Straw Emission Reduction Credits,'' adopted
on December 10, 2008.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2010-15641 Filed 6-28-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 227 (Tuesday, November 28, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 56287-56288]
[FR Doc No: 2017-25604]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-82135; File Nos. SR-BatsBZX-2017-37; SR-BatsEDGX-2017-
23; SR-BOX-2017-17; SR-C2-2017-018; SR-CBOE-2017-041; SR-FINRA-2017-
013; SR-ISE-2017-46; SR-IEX-2017-18; SR-MIAX-2017-20; SR-PEARL-2017-23;
SR-NASDAQ-2017-055; SR-BX-2017-027; SR-Phlx-2017-43; SR-NYSE-2017-23;
SR-NYSEArca-2017-57; SR-NYSEArca-2017-59; SR-NYSEMKT-2017-29; SR-
NYSEMKT-2017-30]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; Bats BZX Exchange, Inc.; Bats EDGX
Exchange, Inc.; BOX Options Exchange LLC; C2 Options Exchange,
Incorporated; Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated; Financial
Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.; International Securities Exchange,
LLC; Investors Exchange LLC; Miami International Securities Exchange
LLC; MIAX PEARL, LLC; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; NASDAQ BX, Inc.;
NASDAQ PHLX LLC; New York Stock Exchange LLC; NYSE Arca, Inc.; NYSE MKT
LLC; Notice of Designation of Longer Period for Commission Action on
Proceedings To Determine Whether To Approve or Disapprove the Proposed
Rule Changes, as Modified by Amendments Thereto, To Eliminate
Requirements That Will Be Duplicative of CAT

November 21, 2017.
    On May 15, 2017, Bats BZX Exchange, Inc. (``Bats BZX'') (n/k/a Cboe
BZX Exchange, Inc.); \1\ Bats EDGX Exchange, Inc. (``Bats EDGX'') (n/k/
a Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc.); \2\ BOX Options Exchange LLC (``BOX''); C2
Options Exchange, Incorporated (``C2'') (n/k/a Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc.);
\3\ Chicago Board Options Exchange, Incorporated (``CBOE'') (n/k/a Cboe
Exchange, Inc.); \4\ Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.
(``FINRA''); International Securities Exchange, LLC (``ISE'');
Investors Exchange LLC (``IEX''); Miami International Securities
Exchange LLC (``MIAX''); MIAX PEARL, LLC (``PEARL''); NYSE Arca, Inc.
(``NYSE Arca''); and NYSE MKT LLC (``NYSE MKT'') (n/k/a NYSE American
LLC) \5\ filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission''), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \6\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\7\
proposed rule changes to eliminate or modify certain rules that require
the collection or reporting of information that is duplicative of the
information that will be collected by the Consolidated Audit Trail
(``CAT'') established pursuant to the National Market System Plan
contemplated by Rule 613 of Regulation NMS.\8\ On May 22, 2017, the New
York Stock Exchange LLC (``NYSE'') filed with the Commission a proposed
rule change for the same purpose, and each of NYSE Arca and NYSE MKT
filed an additional proposed rule change for the same purpose. On May
26, 2017, the NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``NASDAQ'') and NASDAQ PHLX LLC
(``Phlx'') filed with the Commission proposed rule changes for the same
purpose.\9\ On May 30, 2017, NASDAQ BX, Inc. (``BX'') filed with the
Commission a proposed rule change for the same purpose.\10\ In this
notice, all of these proposed rule changes are referred to collectively
as the ``Systems Retirement Proposals.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81962 (October 26,
2017), 82 FR 50711 (November 1, 2017) (SR-BatsBZX-2017-70). The name
change was not yet effective when Bats BZX filed SR-BatsBZX-2017-37.
    \2\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81963 (October 26,
2017), 82 FR 50697 (November 1, 2017) (SR-BatsEDGX-2017-41). The
name change was not yet effective when Bats EDGX filed SR-BatsEDGX-
2017-23.
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81979 (October 30,
2017), 82 FR 51317 (November 3, 2017) (SR-C2-2017-028). The name
change was not yet effective when C2 filed SR-C2-2017-018.
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81981 (October 30,
2017), 82 FR 51309 (November 3, 2017) (SR-CBOE-2017-066). The name
change was not yet effective when CBOE filed SR-CBOE-2017-041.
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80283 (March 21,
2017), 82 FR 15244 (March 27, 2017) (SR-NYSEMKT-2017-14). The name
change was not yet effective when NYSE MKT filed SR-NYSEMKT-2017-29
and SR-NYSEMKT-2017-30.
    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \8\ 17 CFR 242.613.
    \9\ NASDAQ and Phlx initially filed proposed rule changes on May
15, 2017 (SR-NASDAQ-2017-050 and SR-PHLX-2017-38). On May 26, 2017,
NASDAQ and Phlx withdrew these filings and submitted new proposed
rule changes (SR-NASDAQ-2017-055 and SR-PHLX-2017-43).
    \10\ BX initially filed a proposed rule change on May 15, 2017
(SR-BX-2017-025). On May 30, 2017, BX withdrew that initial filing
and submitted a new proposed rule change (SR-BX-2017-027).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 1, 2017, the proposed rule changes submitted by Bats BZX,
Bats EDGX, BOX, C2, CBOE, FINRA, IEX, ISE, MIAX, and PEARL; both
proposed rule changes submitted by NYSE MKT; and one of the proposed
rule changes submitted by NYSE Arca were published for comment in the
Federal Register.\11\ On June 2, 2017, the proposed rule change
submitted by NYSE and the other proposed rule change submitted by NYSE
Arca were published for comment in the Federal Register.\12\ On June 5,
2017, the proposed rule changes submitted by NASDAQ, BX, and Phlx were
published for comment in the Federal Register.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80796 (May 26,
2017), 82 FR 25374 (SR-BatsBZX-2017-37); Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 80795 (May 26, 2017), 82 FR 25358 (SR-BatsEDGX-2017-23);
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80789 (May 26, 2017), 82 FR
25492 (SR-BOX-2017-17); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80798
(May 26, 2017), 82 FR 25385 (SR-C2-2017-018); Securities Exchange
Act Release No. 80797 (May 26, 2017), 82 FR 25429 (SR-CBOE-2017-
041); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80783 (May 26, 2017), 82
FR 25423 (SR-FINRA-2017-013); Securities Exchange Act Release No.
80788 (May 26, 2017), 82 FR 25400 (SR-IEX-2017-18); Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 80787 (May 26, 2017), 82 FR 25469 (SR-ISE-
2017-46); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80790 (May 26, 2017),
82 FR 25366 (SR-MIAX-2017-20); Securities Exchange Act Release No.
80792 (May 26, 2017), 82 FR 25436 (SR-PEARL-2017-23); Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 80791 (May 26, 2017), 82 FR 25362 (SR-
NYSEArca-2017-59); Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80793 (May
26, 2017), 82 FR 25443 (SR-NYSEMKT-2017-29); Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 80794 (May 26, 2017), 82 FR 25439 (SR-NYSEMKT-2017-30).
    \12\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80799 (May 26,
2017), 82 FR 25635 (SR-NYSE-2017-23); Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 80800 (May 26, 2017), 82 FR 25639 (SR-NYSEArca-2017-57).
    \13\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80813 (May 30,
2017), 82 FR 25820 (SR-NASDAQ-2017-055); Securities Exchange Act
Release No. 80814 (May 30, 2017), 82 FR 25872 (SR-BX-2017-027);
Securities Exchange Act Release No. 80811 (May 30, 2017), 82 FR
25863 (SR-Phlx-2017-43).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Four comments were submitted to File Number SR-FINRA-2017-013.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See letters from William H. Herbert, Managing Director,
Financial Information Forum (``FIF''), dated June 22, 2017; Manisha
Kimmel, Chief Regulatory Officer, Wealth Management, Thomson
Reuters, dated June 22, 2017; Marc R. Bryant, Senior Vice President,
Deputy General Counsel, Fidelity Investments, dated June 22, 2017;
and Ellen Greene, Managing Director and Theodore R. Lazo, Managing
Director and Associate General Counsel, Securities Industry and
Financial Markets Association (``SIFMA''), dated June 23, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 22, 2017, each of NASDAQ, BX, ISE, and Phlx filed an
amendment to its proposed rule change. On July 14, 2017, the Commission
extended the time period for Commission action on all of the Systems
Retirement Proposals to August 30, 2017.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81145, 82 FR 33533
(July 20, 2017).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 24, 2017, BOX submitted Amendment No. 1 to its proposed
rule change, IEX submitted Amendment No. 1 to its proposed rule change,
PEARL submitted Amendment No. 2 to its proposed rule change,\16\ and
MIAX submitted Amendment No. 3 to its proposed rule change.\17\ On
August 25, 2017, Bats BZX submitted Amendment No. 1 to its proposed
rule change, Bats EDGX submitted Amendment No. 1 to its proposed rule
change, BX submitted Amendment No. 2 to its proposed rule

change, C2 submitted Amendment No. 1 to its proposed rule change, CBOE
submitted Amendment No. 1 to its proposed rule change, FINRA submitted
Amendment No. 1 to its proposed rule change, ISE submitted Amendment
No. 2 to its proposed rule change, NASDAQ submitted Amendment No. 2 to
its proposed rule change, NYSE submitted Amendment No. 1 to its
proposed rule change, NYSE Arca submitted Amendment No. 1 to each of
its proposed rule changes, NYSE MKT submitted Amendment No. 1 to each
of its proposed rule changes, and Phlx submitted Amendment No. 2 to its
proposed rule change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ PEARL filed Amendment No. 1 to its proposed rule change on
August 22, 2017. On August 24, 2017, PEARL withdrew Amendment No. 1
and replaced it with Amendment No. 2.
    \17\ MIAX filed Amendment No. 1 to its proposed rule change on
August 22, 2017 and withdrew and replaced it with Amendment No. 2 on
the same day. On August 24, 2017, MIAX withdrew Amendment No. 2 and
replaced it with Amendment No. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 30, 2017, the Commission instituted proceedings under
Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act \18\ to determine whether to approve or
disapprove the proposed rule changes, as modified by the respective
amendments thereto.\19\ Since then, the Commission has received eight
additional comment letters on the proposed rule changes, including a
response from FINRA and a response from the CAT NMS Plan Operating
Committee Chair on behalf of Bats BZX, Bats EDGX, BOX, C2, CBOE, IEX,
ISE, MIAX, NASDAQ, BX, Phlx, NYSE, NYSE Arca, NYSE MKT, and PEARL.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2)(B).
    \19\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 81499, 82 FR 42168
(September 6, 2017) (``OIP'').
    \20\ Six substantive comment letters were submitted in response
to the OIP. See letters from Manisha Kimmel, Chief Regulatory
Officer, Wealth Management, Thomson Reuters, dated September 27,
2017; William H. Herbert, Managing Director, FIF, dated September
29, 2017; Ellen Greene, Managing Director and Theodore R. Lazo,
Managing Director and Associate General Counsel, SIFMA, dated
September 29, 2017; Brant K. Brown, Associate General Counsel,
FINRA, dated October 11, 2017; William H. Herbert, Managing
Director, FIF, dated November 2, 2017; and Michael Simon, CAT NMS
Plan Operating Committee Chair, dated November 2, 2017. A seventh
letter in response to the OIP requested additional time to submit
comments on the proposed rule changes. See letter from William H.
Herbert, Managing Director, FIF, dated September 27, 2017. The
eighth comment letter was submitted solely to File Number SR-Phlx-
2017-43. See letter from Michael Kitlas, dated November 14, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 19(b)(2) of the Act \21\ provides that, after initiating
proceedings, the Commission shall issue an order approving or
disapproving a proposed rule change not later than 180 days after the
date of publication of notice of filing of the proposed rule change.
The Commission may, however, extend the period for issuing an order
approving or disapproving the proposed rule change by not more than 60
days if the Commission determines that a longer period is appropriate
and publishes the reasons for such determination. The proposed rule
changes submitted by Bats BZX, Bats EDGX, BOX, C2, CBOE, FINRA, IEX,
ISE, MIAX, and PEARL; both proposed rule changes submitted by NYSE MKT;
and one of the proposed rule changes submitted by NYSE Arca were
published for comment in the Federal Register on June 1, 2017. November
28, 2017, is 180 days from that date, and January 27, 2018, is 240 days
from that date. The proposed rule change submitted by NYSE and the
other proposed rule change submitted by NYSE Arca were published for
comment in the Federal Register on June 2, 2017. November 29, 2017, is
180 days from that date, and January 28, 2018, is 240 days from that
date. The proposed rule changes submitted by NASDAQ, BX, and Phlx were
published for comment in the Federal Register on June 5, 2017. December
2, 2017, is 180 days from that date, and January 31, 2018, is 240 days
from that date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period
within which to issue an order approving or disapproving the Systems
Retirement Proposals so that it has sufficient time to consider the
Systems Retirement Proposals, as modified by the respective amendments
thereto, the issues raised in the comment letters that have been
submitted in connection therewith, and FINRA's response to the
comments. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of
the Act,\1\ designates January 27, 2018, as the date by which the
Commission should either approve or disapprove the proposed rule
changes, as modified by the respective amendments thereto (File Numbers
SR-BatsBZX-2017-37; SR-BatsEDGX-2017-23; SR-BOX-2017-17; SR-C2-2017-
018; SR-CBOE-2017-041; SR-FINRA-2017-013; SR-ISE-2017-46; SR-IEX-2017-
18; SR-MIAX-2017-20; SR-PEARL-2017-23; SR-NASDAQ-2017-055; SR-BX-2017-
027; SR-PHLX-2017-43; SR-NYSE-2017-23; SR-NYSEArca-017-57; SR-NYSEArca-
2017-59; SR-NYSEMKT-2017-29; and SR-NYSEMKT-2017-30).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12); 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(57).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2017-25604 Filed 11-27-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 111 (Monday, June 10, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 34575-34577]
[FR Doc No: 2013-13651]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2013-0311]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Bay Swim VI, Presque Isle Bay, Erie, PA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on
Presque Isle Bay, Erie, PA. This safety zone is intended to restrict
vessels from a portion of Presque Isle bay during the Bay Swim VI
swimming event. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect
participants, spectators, and vessels from the hazards associated with
a large scale swimming event.

DATES: This rule will be effective between 8:30 a.m. until 11:30 a.m.
on June 22, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
[USCG-2013-0311]. 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 rulemaking. You may also
visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground
floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email LT Christopher Mercurio, Chief of Waterways Management,
U.S. Coast Guard Sector Buffalo; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing
the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
TFR Temporary Final Rule

A. Regulatory History and Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final 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 doing so would be impracticable and
contrary to the public interest. The final details for this event were
not known to the Coast Guard until there was insufficient time
remaining before the event to publish an NPRM. Thus, delaying the
effective date of this rule to wait for a comment period to run would
be both impracticable and contrary to the public interest because it
would inhibit the Coast Guard's ability to protect participants,
spectators, and vessels from the hazards associated with a large scale
swimming event, which are discussed further below.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), The Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this temporary rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. For the same reasons discussed in
the preceding paragraph, waiting for a 30 day notice period to run
would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest.

B. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis for the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to
establish regulated navigation areas and limited access areas: 33
U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33
CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064;
Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
    Between 9:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. on June 22, 2013, a large scale
swimming event will be held on Presque Isle Bay near the Erie Yacht
Club lighthouse dock, Erie, PA. The Captain of the Port Buffalo has
determined that this large scale swimming event across a navigable
waterway will pose significant risks to participants and the boating
public.

C. Discussion of the Final Rule

    With the aforementioned hazards in mind, the Captain of the Port
Buffalo has determined that this temporary safety zone is necessary to
ensure the safety of participants, spectators, and vessels during the
Bay Swim VI swimming event. This zone will be effective and enforced
from 8:30 a.m. until 11:30 a.m. on June 22, 2013. This zone will
encompass all waters of Presque Isle Bay, Erie, PA starting from

Vista 3 in Presque Isle State Park at position 42[deg]07'29.30'' N,
80[deg]08'48.82'' W and extend in a straight line 1,000 feet wide to
the Erie Yacht Club at position 42[deg]07'21.74'' N, 80[deg]07'58.30''
W (DATUM: NAD 83).
    Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is
prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his
designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or his
designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel 16.

D. Regulatory Analyses

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

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. It is not
``significant'' under the regulatory policies and procedures of the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
    We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action
because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy,
will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the
budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel
legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be
relatively small and enforced for relatively short time. Also, the
safety zone is designed to minimize its impact on navigable waters.
Furthermore, the safety zone has been designed to allow vessels to
transit around it. Thus, restrictions on vessel movement within that
particular area are expected to be minimal. Under certain conditions,
moreover, vessels may still transit through the safety zone when
permitted by the Captain of the Port.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered the impact of this proposed rule on small entities. The
Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. 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. This rule will affect the following entities,
some of which might be small entities: The owners or operators of
vessels intending to transit or anchor in a portion of Presque Isle Bay
near Erie, PA between 8:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. on June 22, 2013.
    This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons: This
safety zone would be activated, and thus subject to enforcement, for
only approximately 3 hours. Traffic may be allowed to pass through the
zone with the permission of the Captain of the Port. The Captain of the
Port can be reached via VHF channel 16. Before the activation of the
zone, we would issue local Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

3. 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 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 above.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). 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.

4. 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).

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 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 determined
that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

6. 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.

7. Taking of Private Property

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

8. Civil Justice Reform

    This 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.

9. Protection of Children

    We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection
of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule
is not an economically significant rule and does not create an
environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.

10. Indian Tribal Governments

    This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order
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.

11. Energy Effects

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' under Executive
Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

12. Technical Standards

    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

13. 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 (NEPA) (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 the establishment of a safety zone and,
therefore 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.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and record
keeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR parts 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; 46 U.S.C. Chapters 701, 3306, 3703;
50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub.
L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T09-0311 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T09-0311  Safety Zone; Bay Swim VI, Presque Isle Bay, Erie,
PA.

    (a) Location. The safety zone will encompass all waters of Presque
Isle Bay, Erie, PA starting from Vista 3 in Presque Isle State Park at
position 42[deg]07'29.30'' N, 80[deg]08'48.82'' W and extend in a
straight line 1,000 feet wide to the Erie Yacht Club at position
42[deg]07'21.74'' N, 80[deg]07'58.30'' W. (NAD 83)
    (b) Effective and Enforcement Period. This regulation is effective
and will be enforced on June 22, 2013 from 8:30 a.m. until 11:00 a.m.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
section 165.23 of this part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring
within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain
of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene representative.
    (2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may
be permitted by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated on-
scene representative.
    (3) The ``on-scene representative'' of the Captain of the Port
Buffalo is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who
has been designated by the Captain of the Port Buffalo to act on his
behalf.
    (4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety
zone shall contact the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his on-scene
representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the Port
Buffalo or his on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel
16. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety
zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of
the Port Buffalo, or his on-scene representative.

    Dated: May 23, 2013.
S.M. Wischmann,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Buffalo.
[FR Doc. 2013-13651 Filed 6-7-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P