[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 100 (Friday, May 22, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31099-31102]
[FR Doc No: 2020-10979]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket Number USCG-2020-0143]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulation; Upper Potomac River, National Harbor,
MD

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking; re-opening of
public comment period.

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

SUMMARY: On April 2, 2020, the Coast Guard published a notice of
proposed

rulemaking to establish temporary special local regulations on June 20,
2020, to provide for the safety of life on certain navigable waters of
the Upper Potomac River during the Washington, DC Sharkfest Swim. The
Coast Guard is publishing this revised notice of proposed rulemaking
because the event sponsor has postponed the event until September 27,
2020. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before June 22, 2020.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2020-0143 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
proposed rulemaking, call or email Mr. Ron Houck, U.S. Coast Guard
Sector Maryland-National Capital Region; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
PATCOM Coast Guard Patrol Commander
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    The Coast Guard published a NPRM on April 1, 2020 (85 FR 18157),
proposing to establish a special local regulation for the Washington,
DC Sharkfest Swim on the Potomac River, on June 20, 2020. After
publication of that notice, the Coast Guard was informed by the sponsor
that the event was being postponed until September 27, 2020. This is
the only change from the original proposal published on April 1st. We
are issuing this supplemental proposal to amend the special local
regulation due to account for the change in the event date, and re-open
the comment period to account for this change.
    The purpose of this rulemaking is to protect event participants,
non-participants and transiting vessels on certain waters of the Upper
Potomac River before, during, and after the scheduled event. The Coast
Guard is proposing this rulemaking under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034
(previously 33 U.S.C. 1231).

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The COTP Maryland-National Capital Region is proposing to establish
special local regulations from 7 a.m. through 11 a.m. on September 27,
2020. There is no alternate date planned for this event. The regulated
area would cover all navigable waters of the Upper Potomac River,
within an area bounded by a line connecting the following points: From
the Rosilie Island shoreline at latitude 38[deg]47'30.30'' N, longitude
077[deg]01'26.70 W, thence west to latitude 38[deg]47'30.00'' N,
longitude 077[deg]01'37.30'' W, thence south to latitude
38[deg]47'08.20'' N, longitude 077[deg]01'37.30'' W, thence east to
latitude 38[deg]47'09.00'' N, longitude 077[deg]01'09.20'' W, thence
southeast along the pier to latitude 38[deg]47'06.30'' N, longitude
077[deg]01'02.50 W, thence north along the shoreline and west along the
southern extent of the Woodrow Wilson (I-95/I-495) Memorial Bridge and
south and west along the shoreline to the point of origin, located at
National Harbor, MD. The regulated area is approximately 1,210 yards in
length and 740 yards in width.
    The proposed special local regulations duration and size of the
regulated area are intended to ensure the safety of life on these
navigable waters before, during, and after the open water swim event,
scheduled from 7:30 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. on September 27, 2020. The COTP
and the Coast Guard Patrol Commander (PATCOM) would have authority to
forbid and control the movement of all vessels and persons, including
event participants, in the regulated area.
    Except for Washington, DC Sharkfest Swim event participants and
vessels already at berth, a vessel or person would be required to get
permission from the COTP or PATCOM before entering the regulated area.
Vessel operators can request permission to enter and transit through
the regulated area by contacting the PATCOM on VHF-FM channel 16.
Vessel traffic would be able to safely transit the regulated area once
the PATCOM deems it safe to do so. A person or vessel not registered
with the event sponsor as a participant or assigned as official patrols
would be considered a non-participant. Official Patrols are any vessel
assigned or approved by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector Maryland-
National Capital Region with a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer
on board and displaying a Coast Guard ensign.
    If permission is granted by the COTP or PATCOM, a person or vessel
would be allowed to enter the regulated area or pass directly through
the regulated area as instructed. Vessels would be required to operate
at a safe speed that minimizes wake while within the regulated area.
Official patrol vessels will direct non-participants while within the
regulated area. Vessels would be prohibited from loitering within the
navigable channel. Only participant vessels and official patrol vessels
would be allowed to enter the swim race area.
    The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this
document.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. This NPRM has not been
designated a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order
12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on size, time of day
and duration of the regulated area, which would impact a small
designated area of the Upper Potomac River for 4 hours. The Coast Guard
would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16
about the status of the regulated area. Moreover, the rule would allow
vessels to seek permission to enter the regulated area, and vessel
traffic would be able to safely transit the regulated area once the
PATCOM deems it safe to do so.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C.

605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic
impact on any vessel owner or operator.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. 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. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that
question or complain about this proposed rule or any policy or action
of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing
instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series),
which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made
a preliminary determination 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 proposed rule involves
implementation of regulations within 33 CFR part 100 applicable to
organized marine events on the navigable waters of the United States
that could negatively impact the safety of waterway users and shore
side activities in the event area lasting for 4 hours. Normally such
actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph
L[61] of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01,
Rev. 01. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the
discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed
rule.

G. Protest Activities

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

V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking,
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and
submissions in response to this docket, see DHS's Correspondence System
of Records notice (84 FR 48645, September 26, 2018).
    Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket,
and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that website's
instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a
final rule is published.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

    Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is
proposing to amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows:

PART 100--SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS

0
1. The authority citation for part 100 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 70041; 33 CFR 1.05-1.

0
2. Add Sec.  100.T05-0143 to read as follows:

Sec.  100.T05-0143   Washington, DC Sharkfest Swim, Upper Potomac
River, National Harbor, MD.

    (a) Regulated area. The regulations in this section apply to the
following area: All navigable waters of the Upper Potomac River, within
an area bounded by a line connecting the following points: From the
Rosilie Island shoreline at latitude 38[deg]47'30.30'' N, longitude
077[deg]01'26.70 W, thence west

to latitude 38[deg]47'30.00'' N, longitude 077[deg]01'37.30'' W, thence
south to latitude 38[deg]47'08.20'' N, longitude 077[deg]01'37.30'' W,
thence east to latitude 38[deg]47'09.00'' N, longitude
077[deg]01'09.20'' W, thence southeast along the pier to latitude
38[deg]47'06.30'' N, longitude 077[deg]01'02.50'' W, thence north along
the shoreline and west along the southern extent of the Woodrow Wilson
(I-95/I-495) Memorial Bridge and south and west along the shoreline to
the point of origin, located at National Harbor, MD. These coordinates
are based on datum NAD 1983.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section--
    Captain of the Port (COTP) Maryland-National Capital Region means
the Commander, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region
or any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer who has been
authorized by the COTP to act on his behalf.
    Coast Guard Patrol Commander (PATCOM) means a commissioned,
warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard who has been
designated by the Commander, Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National
Capital Region.
    Official Patrol means any vessel assigned or approved by Commander,
Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region with a
commissioned, warrant, or petty officer on board and displaying a Coast
Guard ensign.
    Participant means all persons and vessels registered with the event
sponsor as participating in the Washington DC Sharkfest Swim event or
otherwise designated by the event sponsor as having a function tied to
the event.
    (c) Regulations. (1) Except for vessels already at berth, all non-
participants are prohibited from entering, transiting through,
anchoring in, or remaining within the regulated area described in
paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the COTP Maryland-
National Capital Region or PATCOM.
    (2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP Maryland-National
Capital Region at telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER> or on Marine Band
Radio, VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz) or the PATCOM on Marine Band
Radio, VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). Those in the regulated area must
comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP
Maryland-National Capital Region or PATCOM.
    (3) The COTP Maryland-National Capital Region will provide notice
of the regulated area through advanced notice via Fifth Coast Guard
District Local Notice to Mariners, broadcast notice to mariners, and
on-scene official patrols.
    (d) Enforcement officials. The Coast Guard may be assisted with
marine event patrol and enforcement of the regulated area by other
Federal, State, and local agencies.
    (e) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 7 a.m.
to 11 a.m. September 27, 2020.

    Dated: May 14, 2020.
Joseph B. Loring,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Maryland-National
Capital Region.
[FR Doc. 2020-10979 Filed 5-21-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 82 (Friday, April 27, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25109-25111]
[FR Doc No: 2012-10201]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0274; FRL-9665-7]

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Imperial
County Air Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Imperial County
Air Pollution Control District (ICAPCD) portion of the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern oxides of nitrogen
(NOX) emissions from certain boilers, process heaters and
steam generators. We are approving a local rule that regulates these
emission sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the
Act). We are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a
final action.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by May 29, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2012-0274, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-
line instructions.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.

    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket
without change and may be made available online at www.regulations.gov,
including any personal information provided, unless the comment
includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you
consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as
such and

should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or email.
www.regulations.gov is an ``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not
know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the
body of your comment. If you send email directly to EPA, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
public comment. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be
able to consider your comment.
    Docket: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are
available electronically at 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 at www.regulations.gov, some
information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location
(e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), 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: Andrew Steckel, EPA Region IX, (415)
947-4115<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rule did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of this rule?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is EPA evaluating the rule?
    B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rule
    D. Public Comment and Final Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rule did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this proposal with the date
that it was adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the
California Air Resources Board (CARB).

                                             Table 1--Submitted Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Local agency                 Rule No.             Rule title               Adopted     Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ICAPCD...................................      400.2  Boilers, Process Heaters and         02/23/10     07/20/10
                                                       Steam Generators.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 25, 2010, EPA determined that the submittal for ICAPCD
Rule 400.2 met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix V,
which must be met before formal EPA review.

B. Are there other versions of this rule?

    There are no previous versions of Rule 400.2.

C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule?

    NOX helps produce ground-level ozone, smog and
particulate matter, which harm human health and the environment.
Section 110(a) of the CAA requires States to submit regulations that
control NOX emissions. Rule 400.2 regulates emissions of
NOX from boilers, process heaters and steam generators with
a heat input rating of 5 MMBtu/hour or more. EPA's technical support
document (TSD) has more information about this rule.

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is EPA evaluating the rule?

    Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the
Act), must require Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for
each category of sources covered by a Control Techniques Guidelines
(CTG) document as well as each NOX or VOC major source in
nonattainment areas classified as moderate or above (see sections
182(b)(2) and 182(f)), and must not relax existing requirements (see
sections 110(l) and 193). The ICAPCD regulates an ozone nonattainment
area classified as moderate (see 40 CFR part 81). Because Rule 400.2
regulates major stationary sources of NOX, it must fulfill
NOX RACT requirements. On December 3, 2009, EPA determined
that ICAPCD attained the 1997 8-hour NAAQS for ozone based upon ambient
air monitoring data showing the area had monitored attainment during
the 2006-2008 monitoring period (74 FR 63309). This determination
suspended some of the planning requirements related to attainment of
the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS but not the Section 182(b)(2) and 182(f)
RACT requirements for major NOX emission sources. The ICAPCD
also regulates a serious PM-10 nonattainment area, and is therefore
subject to the requirement under sections 189(b)(1)(B) and 189(e) of
the Act to implement Best Available Control Measures (BACM, which
includes Best Available Control Technology or BACT) for control of PM-
10 and PM-10 precursor emissions.
    Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate
enforceability and RACT requirements consistently include the
following:

    1. ``State Implementation Plans; Nitrogen Oxides Supplement to
the General Preamble; Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990
Implementation of Title I; Proposed Rule,'' (the NOX
Supplement), 57 FR 55620, November 25, 1992.
    2. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies,
and Deviations,'' EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook).
    3. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
    4. ``State Implementation Plans for Serious PM-10 Nonattainment
Areas, and Attainment Date Waivers for PM-10 Nonattainment Areas
Generally; Addendum to the General Preamble for the Implementation
of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' 59 FR 41998
(August 16, 1994).
    5. ``PM-10 Guideline Document,'' EPA 452/R-93-008, April 1993.
    6. ``Determination of Reasonably Available Control Technology
and Best Available Retrofit Control Technology for Industrial,
Institutional, and Commercial Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process
Heaters,'' CARB, July 18, 1991.
    7. ``Alternative Control Techniques Document--NOX
Emissions from Industrial/Commercial/Institutional (ICI) Boilers,''
US EPA 453/R-94-022, March 1994.
    8. ``Alternative Control Techniques Document--NOX
Emissions from Utility Boilers,'' US EPA 452/R-93-008, March 1994.

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?

    We believe this rule is consistent with the relevant policy and
guidance regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP relaxations. The TSD
has more information on our evaluation.

C. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rule

    The TSD describes additional rule revisions that we recommend for
the next time the local agency modifies the rule but are not currently
the basis for rule disapproval.

D. Public Comment and Final Action

    Because EPA believes the submitted rule fulfills all relevant
requirements, we are proposing to fully approve it as described in
section 110(k)(3) of the Act. We will accept comments from the public
on this proposal for the next 30 days. Unless we receive convincing new
information during the comment period, we intend to publish a final
approval action that will incorporate this rule into the federally
enforceable SIP.

III. 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 proposed action merely proposes to approve State law
as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this
proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     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 disproportionate human health or environmental effects with
practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive
Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this proposed action 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.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Air pollution control, Environmental protection, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

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

    Dated: April 13, 2012.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2012-10201 Filed 4-26-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P