[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 34 (Tuesday, February 21, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10342-10349]
[FR Doc No: 2012-3704]

Vol. 77

Tuesday,

No. 34

February 21, 2012

Part VI

Environmental Protection Agency

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

40 CFR Part 97

Revisions to Federal Implementation Plans To Reduce Interstate
Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone; Final Rule and Proposed
Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 77 , No. 34 / Tuesday, February 21, 2012 /
Rules and Regulations

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 97

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491; FRL-9632-8]
RIN 2060-AR35

Revisions to Federal Implementation Plans To Reduce Interstate
Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action on additional revisions to
the final Transport Rule (Federal Implementation Plans: Interstate
Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone and Correction of SIP
Approvals published August 8, 2011). In the proposed Revisions to
Federal Implementation Plans To Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine
Particulate Matter and Ozone, published October 14, 2011, EPA sought
additional comment on unit-level operational information similar to the
information supporting the proposed revisions, which specifically
addressed post-combustion pollution control equipment and immediate-
term operational requirements necessitating non-economic generation
based on verifiable data. Based on comments received, EPA is finalizing
adjustments that result in revisions to 2012 and 2014 state budgets in
Arkansas, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri,
New York, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas, and
revisions to new unit set-asides in Arkansas, Louisiana, and
Missouri.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Throughout this preamble, EPA refers to a state budget for
2012 and 2013 as a ``2012'' state budget and refers to a state
budget for 2014 and thereafter as a ``2014'' state budget.
Therefore, any revision of a 2012 state budget would apply to the
state budget for 2012 and 2013, and any revision of a 2014 state
budget would apply to the state budget for 2014 and thereafter.

DATES: This rule is effective on May 21, 2012 without further notice,
unless EPA receives significant adverse comments by March 22, 2012. If
we receive such comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2009-0491, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery: Air and Radiation Docket, EPA West
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC
20460. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal
hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for
deliveries of boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2009-0491. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov
or email. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous
access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an email comment directly to EPA without going through
www.regulations.gov your email address will be automatically captured
and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket
and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic
comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact
information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you
submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties
and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to
consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special
characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or
viruses. For additional information about EPA's public docket visit the
EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air and Radiation
Docket, EPA West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20460. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gabrielle Stevens, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Clean Air Markets Division, MC 6204J, Ariel Rios
Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460, telephone
(202) 343-9252, email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Electronic copies
of this document can be accessed through the EPA Web site at: http://epa.gov/airmarkets.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA is publishing this rule without a prior
proposed rule because we view this as a noncontroversial action and
anticipate no adverse comment. However, elsewhere in this issue of the
Federal Register, we are publishing a separate document that will serve
as the proposed rule if significant adverse comments are received on
this direct final rule. We will not institute a second comment period
on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this
time. For further information about commenting on this rule, see the
ADDRESSES section of this document.
    If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely
withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that this
direct final rule will not take effect. We would address all public
comments in any subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule.
    Regulated Entities. Entities regulated by this action primarily are
fossil fuel-fired boilers, turbines, and combined cycle units that
serve generators that produce electricity for sale or cogenerate
electricity for sale and steam. Regulated categories and entities
include:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Category                     NAICS Code          Examples of potentially regulated industries
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry...............................    2211, 2212, 2213  Electric service providers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather to provide
a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this
action. This table lists the types of entities which EPA is now aware
could potentially be regulated by this action. Other types of entities
not listed in this table could also be regulated. To determine whether
your facility, company, business, organization, etc., is regulated by
this action, you should carefully examine the applicability criteria in
Sec. Sec.  97.404, 97.504, and 97.604 of title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations. If you have questions regarding the applicability
of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

I. Detailed Discussion of Corresponding Rule Revisions

    EPA has determined that the following additional corrections are
needed to the August 8, 2011 final Transport Rule, as a result of
comments received on the proposed rule, Revisions to Federal
Implementation Plans to Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate
Matter and Ozone (76 FR 63860, October 14, 2011) (Revisions Rule). In
that proposed rule, EPA took comment on several similar corrections and
demonstrated a consistent methodology for calculating those
corrections. EPA received no comments opposing the proposal to make
these corrections to state budgets and new unit set-asides, and EPA
received very few comments addressing the manner in which the
corrections were quantified, to which EPA responded in the final
revisions rule. EPA has calculated the corrections in this rulemaking
in a fully consistent manner with the approach developed through public
comment on the proposed and finalized revisions rule. See the ``Final
Revisions Rule State Budgets and New Unit Set-Asides'' Technical
Support Document (TSD) in the docket for this rulemaking for a
quantitative demonstration of these revisions. For quantitative
assessments of the relationship between final revisions to the
Transport Rule and the original analysis, also see ``Final Revisions
Rule Significant Contribution Assessment'' TSD in the docket for this
rulemaking. The ``Final Revisions Rule Unit-Level Allocations under the
FIPs,'' also in the docket for this rulemaking, present unit-level
allocations under the FIPs.
    (1) Revise the Arkansas ozone season NOX budgets for
2012 and 2014 and correct the ozone season new unit set-aside budget
for an omitted planned facility.
    EPA is increasing the Arkansas 2012 and 2014 ozone-season
NOX budget based upon comments received that demonstrate
that the McClellan plant is in an out-of-merit-order dispatch area with
conditions likely to necessitate what would otherwise be non-economic
generation.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ In the proposed revisions rule, EPA characterized an out-of-
merit-order dispatch area as one in which ``units * * * are
frequently dispatched out of regional economic order as a result of
short-run limitations on the ability to meet local electricity
demand with generation from outside the area.'' (76 FR 63865)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA re-calculated the emissions from the McClellan plant with non-
economic generation to account for the input assumption changes. These
calculations yield increases to the Arkansas 2012 and 2014 state
budgets for ozone-season NOX of 73 tons. Comments on the
revisions rule identified Turk Unit 1 as commencing commercial
operation on or after January 1, 2010, qualifying it as a new unit
under the final Transport Rule's unit-level allocation methodology (76
FR 48290); however, the final Transport Rule erroneously omitted this
unit's projected emissions from the calculation of Arkansas' ozone-
season NOX new unit set-aside. EPA is therefore revising the
portion of the Arkansas ozone-season budget dedicated to the state's
new unit set-aside account so that it takes into account this unit's
projected emissions, consistent with the new unit set-aside methodology
in the final Transport Rule. EPA is only applying this revision for
2014 and beyond, because the Agency has already recorded (i.e.,
distributed) allowances under the Arkansas state budget for the 2012
and 2013 control periods. Turk Unit 1 remains eligible to request
allowance allocation from the new unit set-asides for any control
period under the program. This revision yields an ozone-season
NOX new unit set-aside of 8 percent for 2014 and beyond for
Arkansas. This revision to the Arkansas new unit set-aside necessitates
changes to allowance allocations to existing units in 2014 and beyond.
    (2) Revise the Georgia SO2, annual NOX, and
ozone season NOX budgets for 2014.
    In the final Transport Rule, EPA explained its intent to capture
``reductions that occur due to state rules, consent decrees, and other
planned changes in generation patterns that occur after 2012, but
during or prior to 2014'' in the 2014 state budgets (76 FR 48261).
Commenters on the revisions rule noted that EPA inadvertently included
pollution control installation requirements from a Georgia state rule
whose deadlines at certain units actually extend beyond 2014. To
correct the alignment of the Georgia 2014 state budgets with the
requirements for affected units in Georgia to install controls by the
state rule's deadlines, EPA is increasing Georgia's 2014 state budgets
by 40,334 tons of SO2, 13,198 tons of annual NOX,
and 5,762 tons of ozone-season NOX.
    (3) Revise the Indiana SO2 budgets for 2012 and 2014.
    EPA is revising the Indiana 2012 and 2014 annual SO2
budgets based on comments received on the proposed revisions rule (76
FR 63860, October 14, 2011) regarding post-combustion control status at
Gallagher Units 2 and 4. Commenters identified an erroneous assumption
of flue gas desulphurization (FGD, or scrubber) with 86 percent removal
at units that have actually installed dry sorbent injection (DSI)
technology with a 60 percent removal rate and an emission rate limit of
0.8 lbs/mmBtu established in a NSR settlement agreement. EPA has
recalculated the projected emissions at these units, and that
recalculation supports a 3,465 ton increase in the state's annual
SO2 budget.
    Commenters on the revisions rule also identified a facility in
Indiana, Gibson Unit 5, which currently faces immediate-term
limitations regarding the amount of flue gas that can be treated in its
existing FGD. In the final Transport Rule analysis, EPA relied on the
SO2 removal efficiency that this facility reported at its
scrubber to the Energy Information Administration (EIA). However, EPA
has since determined that this reported value only intended to address
the removal efficiency for the portion of the flue gas treated in the
scrubber. EPA has recalculated the projected emissions for this unit
using the most recent data reported by this facility to EIA on form

860 for 2009, which includes the scrubber's removal efficiency and the
portion of flue gas treated. This recalculation supports an increase to
Indiana's 2012 and 2014 SO2 budget of an additional 1,873
tons (5,338 tons total).
    (4) Revise the Kansas SO2 and annual NOX
budgets for 2012 and 2014.
    Commenters on the revisions rule provided information showing that
one unit at the Quindaro plant in Kansas is in an out-of-merit-order
dispatch area with conditions likely to necessitate what would
otherwise be non-economic generation. EPA re-calculated the emissions
from this plant with non-economic generation to account for the input
assumption changes. These calculations yield increases to the Kansas
2012 and 2014 state budgets for annual SO2 of 452 tons and
annual NOX of 640 tons.
    In the final Transport Rule, EPA explained its intent to capture
``reductions that occur due to state rules, consent decrees, and other
planned changes in generation patterns that occur after 2012, but
during or prior to 2014'' in the 2014 state budgets (76 FR 48261).
Commenters on the revisions rule noted that EPA inadvertently included
an emission rate requirement from a consent decree affecting a Kansas
facility whose deadline actually extends beyond 2014. To correct the
alignment of the Kansas 2014 state budget with the requirements for
affected units in Kansas to meet the emission rate limitation by the
consent decree's deadlines, EPA is increasing the Kansas 2014 annual
NOX budget by an additional 5,154 tons (5,794 tons total).
    (5) Revise the Louisiana ozone season NOX budgets for
2012 and 2014 and adjust the ozone season new unit set-aside.
    EPA is increasing the Louisiana 2012 and 2014 ozone-season
NOX budgets based on comments received on the revisions rule
demonstrating that the Stall and Lieberman plants are in an out-of-
merit-order dispatch area with conditions likely to necessitate what
would otherwise be non-economic generation. EPA re-calculated the
emissions from the Stall and Lieberman plants with non-economic
generation to account for the input assumption changes. These
calculations yield increases to Louisiana's 2012 and 2014 state budgets
for ozone-season NOX of 89 tons.
    Comments on the revisions rule also noted that in calculating the
Louisiana ozone-season NOX new unit set-aside, EPA included
projected emissions from a planned new facility, Washington Parish,
which will not in fact come into service in Louisiana. EPA is therefore
reducing the size of Louisiana's ozone-season NOX new unit
set-aside in 2012 and 2014 to 2 percent (from the previous 3 percent)
to account for the exclusion of these projected emissions from the
relevant calculation. This revision means that fewer allowances will
need to be held in reserve for the new unit set-aside; after this
revision's effective date, EPA will reallocate any allowances in excess
of the revised new unit set-aside to existing units in the state by the
same existing unit allowance allocation methodology as previously
finalized.
    (6) Revise the Mississippi ozone season NOX budgets for
2012 and 2014.
    EPA is increasing the Mississippi 2012 and 2014 ozone-season
NOX budgets based on comments received on the revisions rule
demonstrating that the Moselle plant is in an out-of-merit-order
dispatch area with conditions likely to necessitate what would
otherwise be non-economic generation.
    EPA re-calculated the emissions from the Moselle plant with non-
economic generation to account for the input assumption changes. These
calculations yield increases to Mississippi's 2012 and 2014 state
budgets for ozone-season NOX of 115 tons.
    (7) Revise the Missouri annual and ozone season NOX
budgets for 2012 and 2014 and correct the SO2, annual
NOX, and ozone season NOX new unit set-aside
budgets for an omitted operating new facility.
    EPA is increasing the Missouri 2012 and 2014 annual and ozone-
season NOX budgets to account for operational constraints at
six plants based upon comments received on the revisions rule. The
commenters provided information showing that these units were in out-
of-merit-order dispatch areas with conditions likely to necessitate
what would otherwise be non-economic generation.
    EPA re-calculated the emissions from these six plants with non-
economic generation to account for the input assumption changes. These
calculations yield increases to Missouri's 2012 and 2014 state budgets
for annual NOX of 26 tons and ozone-season NOX of
26 tons.
    Comments on the revisions rule identified Iatan Unit 2 as
commencing commercial operation on or after January 1, 2010, qualifying
it as a new unit under the final Transport Rule's unit-level allocation
methodology (76 FR 48290); however, the final Transport Rule
erroneously omitted this unit's projected emissions from the
calculation of Missouri's new unit set-asides. EPA is therefore
revising the portion of Missouri's SO2, annual
NOX, and ozone-season NOX budgets dedicated to
the state's new unit set-asides so that they take into account this
unit's projected emissions, consistent with the new unit set-aside
methodology in the final Transport Rule. EPA is only applying this
revision for 2013 and beyond, because the Agency has already recorded
(i.e., distributed) allowances under the Missouri state budget for the
2012 control period. Iatan Unit 2 remains eligible to request allowance
allocation from the new unit set-asides for any control period under
the program. This revision yields an ozone-season NOX new
unit set-aside of 6 percent, an annual NOX new unit set-
aside of 6 percent, and an SO2 new unit set-aside of 3
percent for 2013 and beyond for Missouri. This revision to Missouri's
new unit set-aside necessitates changes to allowance allocations to
existing units in 2013 and beyond.
    (8) Revise the Ohio SO2, annual NOX, and
ozone season NOX budgets for 2012 and 2014.
    EPA is increasing Ohio's 2012 and 2014 annual SO2,
annual NOX, and ozone-season NOX budgets to
account for operational constraints at two plants, Conesville and
Muskingum River, based on comments received on the revisions rule. The
commenter provided information showing that these plants were in out-
of-merit-order dispatch areas with conditions likely to necessitate
what would otherwise be non-economic generation.
    EPA re-calculated the emissions from these two plants with non-
economic generation to reflect the input assumption changes. These
calculations yield increases to Ohio's 2012 and 2014 state budgets for
annual SO2 of 5,163 tons, annual NOX of 547 tons,
and ozone-season NOX of 257 tons.
    EPA is finalizing additional adjustments to Ohio's 2012 and 2014
annual and ozone-season NOX budgets to correct an erroneous
assumption of an SCR at Bayshore 4. There is no SCR planned or under
construction at this facility. This results in an additional 2,218 ton
increase (2,765 ton total) in the state's annual NOX budget
and a 964 ton increase (1,221 ton total) for the ozone-season
NOX budget.
    (9) Revise the Nebraska SO2 budgets for 2012 and 2014.
    EPA is finalizing revisions to the Nebraska 2012 and 2014
SO2 budgets, based on comments on the revisions rule, to
correct assumptions regarding FGD pollution control technology at
Whelan Energy Center Units 1 and 2 and Nebraska City Unit 2. The
commenter noted that the technology at Nebraska Unit 2 and Whelan Unit
2 is

dry FGD technology, whereas EPA had assumed wet FGD technology with a
higher SO2 removal efficiency than the actual dry FGD
technology that those units achieve. Additionally, EPA is also revising
its assumption of FGD technology at Whelan Energy Center Unit 1. There
is no FGD present, planned, or under construction at the unit. These
adjustments result in an increase of 3,110 tons to the 2012 and 2014
annual SO2 budgets for the state.
    (10) Revise the New York SO2, annual NOX, and
ozone season NOX budgets for 2012 and 2014.
    EPA is increasing New York's 2012 and 2014 annual SO2,
annual NOX, and ozone-season NOX budgets based on
comments received on the revisions rule demonstrating that the East
River plant is in an out-of-merit-order dispatch area with conditions
likely to necessitate what would otherwise be non-economic generation.
EPA re-calculated the emissions from this facility with out-of-merit-
order dispatch to reflect the input assumption changes. These
calculations yield increases to New York's 2012 and 2014 state budgets
for annual SO2 of 84 tons, annual NOX of 694
tons, and ozone-season NOX of 127 tons.
    EPA is also finalizing an adjustment of 5,360 tons to New York's
2012 and 2014 SO2 budgets based on comments received on the
revisions rule. Commenters identified two facilities, Dunkirk and
Huntley, with existing dry sorbent injection (DSI) technology for which
EPA had assumed an SO2 removal rate of 70 percent but which
actually achieves a removal rate of only 53 percent. EPA recalculated
the projected emissions for these units based on this revised
assumption and is increasing the New York 2012 and 2014 SO2
budgets accordingly.
    (11) Revise the Oklahoma ozone-season NOX budgets for
2013 and 2014.
    EPA is increasing the Oklahoma 2013 \3\ and 2014 ozone-season
NOX budget based upon comments received on the revisions
rule demonstrating that the Comanche plant is in an out-of-merit-order
dispatch area with conditions likely to necessitate what would
otherwise be non-economic generation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ These changes do not apply to the Oklahoma 2012 budget
because similar changes were already made to the affected units'
operation in 2012, as described in the Technical Support Document
``Determination of State Budgets for the Final Ozone Supplemental of
the Transport Rule'' (EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491-485, pg. 5-7).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA re-calculated the emissions from the Comanche plant with non-
economic generation to account for the input assumption changes. These
calculations yield increases to the Oklahoma 2013 and 2014 state
budgets for ozone-season NOX of 859 tons.
    (12) Revise the South Carolina SO2 budgets for 2012 and
2014.
    EPA is finalizing an 8,013 ton increase to South Carolina's 2012
and 2014 annual SO2 budgets based on comments received on
the revision rule regarding post-combustion control technology at three
units. This action revises the assumption of an FGD at the W S Lee
Facility. There are no FGDs planned, under construction, or expected to
be online in 2012 or 2014 at this facility.
    (13) Revise the Texas annual NOX and ozone season
NOX budgets for 2012 and 2014.
    EPA is increasing the Texas 2012 and 2014 annual and ozone-season
NOX budgets to account for operational constraints at six
plants based on comments received on the revisions rule: Jones, Moore
County, Nichols, Plant X, Knox Lee, and Wilkes. The commenters provided
information showing that these plants were in out-of-merit-order
dispatch areas with conditions likely to necessitate what would
otherwise be non-economic generation.
    EPA re-calculated the emissions from these plants with non-economic
generation to account for the input assumption changes. These
calculations yield increases to the Texas 2012 and 2014 state budgets
for annual NOX of 2,731 tons, and ozone-season
NOX of 1,142 tons.

II. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is a ``significant regulatory action.'' Accordingly, EPA
submitted this action to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for
review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011) and any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been
documented in the docket for this action.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden.
This action makes relatively minor revisions to the emission budgets
and allowance allocations or allowance allocations only in certain
states in the final Transport Rule and corrects minor technical errors
which are ministerial. However, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) has previously approved the information collection requirements
contained in the final Transport Rule under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB
control number 2060-0667. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations
in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined
by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR
121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of
a city, county, town, school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated
and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of this action on small
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The small
entities directly regulated by this action are electric power
generators whose ultimate parent entity has a total electric output of
4 million megawatt-hours (MWh) or less in the previous fiscal year. We
have determined that the changes considered in this proposed rulemaking
pose no additional burden for small entities. The proposed revision to
the new unit set-asides in Arkansas, Missouri, and Texas would yield an
extremely small change in unit-level allowance allocations to existing
units, including small entities, such that it would not affect the
analysis conducted on small entity impacts under the finalized
Transport Rule. In all other states, the revisions proposed in this
rulemaking would yield additional allowance allocations to all units,
including small entities, without increasing program stringency, such
that it is not possible for the impact to small entities to be any
larger than that already considered and reviewed in the finalized
Transport Rule.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in
expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year.
This action is increasing the budgets and increasing the total number
of allowances or maintaining the same budget but revising unit-level
allocations in several other states in the Transport Rule. Thus, this
rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 or 205 of UMRA.
    In developing the final Transport Rule, EPA consulted with small
governments pursuant to a plan established under section 203 of UMRA to
address impacts of regulatory requirements in the rule that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It 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, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. This action makes relatively minor
revisions to the emissions budgets and allowance allocations or
allowance allocations only in certain states in the final Transport
Rule. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this rule. EPA did
provide information to state and local officials during development of
both the proposed and final Transport Rule.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action
makes relatively minor revisions to the emissions budgets and allowance
allocations in several states in the final Transport Rule and helps
ease the transition from CAIR. Indian country new unit set-asides will
increase slightly or remain unchanged in the states affected by this
action. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. EPA
consulted with tribal officials during the process of promulgating the
final Transport Rule to permit them to have meaningful and timely input
into its development.

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks

    This action is not subject to EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997) because it is not economically significant as defined in EO
12866, and because the Agency does not believe the environmental health
or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate
risk to children. Analyses by EPA that show how the emission reductions
from the strategies in the final Transport Rule will further improve
air quality and children's health can be found in the final Transport
Rule RIA.

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

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. EPA believes that there is no
meaningful impact to the energy supply beyond that which is reported
for the Transport Rule program in the final Transport Rule.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    As described in section XII.I of the preamble to the final
Transport Rule, the Transport Rule program requires all sources to meet
the applicable monitoring requirements of 40 CFR part 75. Part 75
already incorporates a number of voluntary consensus standards. This
action does not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA did not
consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

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

    Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
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 and low-income
populations in the United States.
    In the Final Revisions Rule Significant Contribution Assessment
Technical Support Document in the docket to this rulemaking, EPA
assessed impacts of the emission changes in this rule on air quality
throughout the Transport Rule region. For SO2, the estimated
air quality impacts were minimal and no additional nonattainment or
maintenance areas were identified. EPA also assessed the relationship
between the NOX emission inventories in each affected state
and the finalized revisions to annual and ozone-season NOX
budgets and found the revisions represent small percentages of each
state's total emissions in 2014. As a result, EPA does not believe
these technical revisions would affect any of the conclusions supported
by the air quality and environmental justice analyses conducted for the
final Transport Rule.
    Based on the significant contribution assessment in the technical
support document for this action, EPA has determined that this action
will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it
does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment. EPA believes that the vast majority of communities and
individuals in areas covered by the Transport Rule program inclusive of
this action, including numerous low-income, minority, and tribal
individuals and communities in both rural areas and inner cities in the
eastern and central U.S., will see significant improvements in air
quality and resulting improvements in health. EPA's assessment of the
effects of the final Transport Rule program on these communities is
available in section XII.J of the preamble to the final Transport Rule.

K. Congressional Review Act

    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 rule 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 a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2). This rule will be effective April 23, 2012.

L. Judicial Review

    Petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by
April 23, 2012. Section 307(b)(1) of the CAA indicates which Federal
Courts of Appeal have venue for petitions of review of final actions by
EPA. This section provides, in part, that petitions for review must be
filed in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit if
(i) the agency action consists of ``nationally applicable regulations
promulgated, or final action taken, by the Administrator,'' or (ii)
such action is locally or regionally applicable, if ``such action is
based on a determination of nationwide scope or effect and if in taking
such action the Administrator finds and publishes that such action is
based on such a determination.''
    In the final Transport Rule, EPA determined that ``[a]ny final
action related to the Transport Rule is `nationally applicable' within
the meaning of section 307(b)(1).'' 76 FR 48,352. Through this rule,
EPA is revising specific aspects of the final Transport Rule. This rule
therefore is a final action related to the Transport Rule and as such
is covered by the determination of national applicability made in the
final Transport Rule. Thus, pursuant to section 307(b) any petitions
for review of this action must be filed in the Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit within 60 days from the date final action
is published in the Federal Register. Filing a petition for
reconsideration of this action does not affect the finality of this
rule 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. In addition,
pursuant to CAA section 307(b)(2) this action may not be challenged
later in proceedings to enforce its requirements.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 97

    Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control,
Electric utilities, Nitrogen oxides, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur dioxide.

    Dated: February 7, 2012.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, part 97 of chapter I of
title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as amended elsewhere in
this issue, is further amended as follows:

PART 97--FEDERAL NOX BUDGET TRADING PROGRAM AND CAIR NOX AND SO2
TRADING PROGRAMS

0
1. The authority citation for Part 97 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, 7403, 7410, 7426, 7601, and 7651, et
seq.

0
2. Section 97.410 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(2)(iv) and (v);
0
b. Revising paragraph (a)(6), (11), (14), (16), and (20); and
0
c. Revising paragraphs (b)(2), (6), (11), (14), (16) and (20) to read
as follows:

Sec.  97.410  State NOX Annual trading budgets, new unit set-asides,
Indian country new unit set-aside, and variability limits.

    (a) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iv) The NOX annual trading budget for 2014 and
thereafter is 53,738 tons.
    (v) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2014 and
thereafter is 1,075 tons.
    (vi) * * *
* * * * *
    (6) Kansas. (i) The NOX annual trading budget for 2012
and 2013 is 31,354 tons.
    (ii) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013
is 596 tons.
    (iii) The NOX annual Indian country new unit set-aside
for 2012 and 2013 is 31 tons.
    (iv) The NOX annual trading budget for 2014 and
thereafter is 31,354 tons.
    (v) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2014 and
thereafter is 596 tons.
    (vi) The NOX annual Indian country new unit set-aside
for 2014 and thereafter is 31 tons.
* * * * *
    (11) Missouri. (i) The NOX annual trading budget for
2012 and 2013 is 52,400 tons.
    (ii) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2012 is 1,572
tons and for 2013 is 3,144 tons.
    (iii) [Reserved]
    (iv) The NOX annual trading budget for 2014 and
thereafter is 48,743 tons.
    (v) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2014 and
thereafter is 2,925 tons.
    (vi) [Reserved]
* * * * *
    (14) New York. (i) The NOX annual trading budget for
2012 and 2013 is 21,722 tons.
    (ii) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013
is 412 tons.
    (iii) The NOX annual Indian country new unit set-aside
for 2012 and 2013 is 22 tons.
    (iv) The NOX annual trading budget for 2014 and
thereafter is 21,722 tons.
    (v) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2014 and
thereafter is 412 tons.
    (vi) The NOX annual Indian country new unit set-aside
for 2014 and thereafter is 22 tons.
* * * * *
    (16) Ohio. (i) The NOX annual trading budget for 2012
and 2013 is 95,468 tons.
    (ii) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013
is 1,909 tons.
    (iii) [Reserved]
    (iv) The NOX annual trading budget for 2014 and
thereafter is 90,258 tons.
    (v) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2014 and
thereafter is 1,805 tons.
    (vi) [Reserved]
* * * * *
    (20) Texas. (i) The NOX annual trading budget for 2012
and 2013 is 137,701 tons.
    (ii) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013
is 5,370 tons.
    (iii) The NOX annual Indian country new unit set-aside
for 2012 and 2013 is 138 tons.
    (iv) The NOX annual trading budget for 2014 and
thereafter is 137,701 tons.
    (v) The NOX annual new unit set-aside for 2014 and
thereafter is 5,370 tons.
    (vi) The NOX annual Indian country new unit set-aside
for 2014 and thereafter is 138 tons.
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) The NOX annual variability limit for Georgia is
9,673 tons.
* * * * *
    (6) The NOX annual variability limit for Kansas is 5,644
tons.
* * * * *
    (11) The NOX annual variability limit for Missouri is
8,774 tons.
* * * * *
    (14) The NOX annual variability limit for New York is
3,910 tons.
* * * * *

    (16) The NOX annual variability limit for Ohio is 16,246
tons.
* * * * *
    (20) The NOX annual variability limit for Texas is
24,786 tons.
* * * * *

0
2. Section 97.510 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a)(2);
0
b. Revising paragraphs (a)(4)(iv) and (v);
0
c. Revising paragraphs (a)(9), (12), (13), (15), (17), (18), and (22);
and
0
d. Revising paragraphs (b)(2), (4), (9), (12), (13), (15), (17), (18),
and (22) to read as follows:

Sec.  97.510  State NOX Ozone Season trading budgets, new
unit set-asides, Indian country new unit set-aside, and variability
limits.

    (a) * * *
    (2) Arkansas. (i) The NOX ozone season trading budget
for 2012 and 2013 is 15,110 tons.
    (ii) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012
and 2013 is 756 tons.
    (iii) [Reserved]
    (iv) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2014 and
thereafter is 15,110 tons.
    (v) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2014 and
thereafter is 1,209 tons.
    (vi) [Reserved]
* * * * *
    (4) * * *
    (iv) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2014 and
thereafter is 24,041 tons.
    (v) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2014 and
thereafter is 481 tons.
    (vi) * * *
* * * * *
    (9) Louisiana. (i) The NOX ozone season trading budget
for 2012 and 2013 is 18,115 tons.
    (ii) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012
and 2013 is 344 tons.
    (iii) The NOX ozone season Indian country new unit set-
aside for 2012 and 2013 is 18 tons.
    (iv) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2014 and
thereafter is 18,115 tons.
    (v) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2014 and
thereafter is 344 tons.
    (vi) The NOX ozone season Indian country new unit set-
aside for 2014 and thereafter is 18 tons.
* * * * *
    (12) Mississippi. (i) The NOX ozone season trading
budget for 2012 and 2013 is 12,429 tons.
    (ii) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012
and 2013 is 237 tons.
    (iii) The NOX ozone season Indian country new unit set-
aside for 2012 and 2013 is 12 tons.
    (iv) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2014 and
thereafter is 12,429 tons.
    (v) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2014 and
thereafter is 237 tons.
    (vi) The NOX ozone season Indian country new unit set-
aside for 2014 and thereafter is 12 tons.
    (13) Missouri. (i) The NOX ozone season trading budget
for 2012 and 2013 is 22,788 tons.
    (ii) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012 is
684 tons and for 2013 is 1,367 tons.
    (iii) [Reserved]
    (iv) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2014 and
thereafter is 21,099 tons.
    (v) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2014 and
thereafter is 1,266 tons.
    (vi) [Reserved]
* * * * *
    (15) New York. (i) The NOX ozone season trading budget
for 2012 and 2013 is 10,369 tons.
    (ii) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012
and 2013 is 197 tons.
    (iii) The NOX ozone season Indian country new unit set-
aside for 2012 and 2013 is 10 tons.
    (iv) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2014 and
thereafter is 10,369 tons.
    (v) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2014 and
thereafter is 197 tons.
    (vi) The NOX ozone season Indian country new unit set-
aside for 2014 and thereafter is 10 tons.
* * * * *
    (17) Ohio. (i) The NOX ozone season trading budget for
2012 and 2013 is 41,284 tons.
    (ii) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012
and 2013 is 826 tons.
    (iii) [Reserved]
    (iv) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2014 and
thereafter is 39,013 tons.
    (v) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2014 and
thereafter is 780 tons.
    (vi) [Reserved]
    (18) Oklahoma. (i) The NOX ozone season trading budget
for 2012 is 36,567 tons and for 2013 is 22,694 tons.
    (ii) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012 is
731 tons and for 2013 is 454 tons.
    (iii) [Reserved]
    (iv) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2014 and
thereafter is 22,694 tons.
    (v) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2014 and
thereafter is 454 tons.
    (vi) [Reserved]
* * * * *
    (22) Texas. (i) The NOX ozone season trading budget for
2012 and 2013 is 65,560 tons.
    (ii) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2012
and 2013 is 2,556 tons.
    (iii) The NOX ozone season Indian country new unit set-
aside for 2012 and 2013 is 66 tons.
    (iv) The NOX ozone season trading budget for 2014 and
thereafter is 65,560 tons.
    (v) The NOX ozone season new unit set-aside for 2014 and
thereafter is 2,556 tons.
    (vi) The NOX ozone season Indian country new unit set-
aside for 2014 and thereafter is 66 tons.
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) The NOX ozone season variability limit for Arkansas
is 3,173 tons.
* * * * *
    (4) The NOX ozone season variability limit for Georgia
is 5,049 tons.
* * * * *
    (9) The NOX ozone season variability limit for Louisiana
is 3,804 tons.
* * * * *
    (12) The NOX ozone season variability limit for
Mississippi is 2,610 tons.
    (13) The NOX ozone season variability limit for Missouri
is 4,431 tons.
* * * * *
    (15) The NOX ozone season variability limit for New York
is 2,177 tons.
* * * * *
    (17) The NOX ozone season variability limit for Ohio is
8,193 tons.
    (18) The NOX ozone season variability limit for Oklahoma
is 4,766 tons.
* * * * *
    (22) The NOX ozone season variability limit for Texas is
13,768 tons.
* * * * *

0
3. Section 97.610 is amended by revising:
0
a. Paragraph (a)(2);
0
b. Paragraphs (a)(7)(ii) and (v);
0
c. Paragraphs (a)(9) and (11); and
0
d. Paragraphs (b)(2), (9), and (11) to read as follows:

Sec.  97.610  State SO2 Group 1 trading budgets, new unit set-asides,
Indian country new unit set-aside, and variability limits.

    (a) * * *
    (2) Indiana. (i) The SO2 trading budget for 2012 and
2013 is 290,762 tons.
    (ii) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is
8,723 tons.
    (iii) [Reserved]
    (iv) The SO2 trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is
166,449 tons.

    (v) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter
is 4,993 tons.
    (vi) [Reserved]
* * * * *
    (7) * * *
    (ii) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2012 is 4,149 tons
and for 2013 is 6,224 tons.
* * * * *
    (v) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter
is 4,978 tons.
    (vi) * * *
* * * * *
    (9) New York. (i) The SO2 trading budget for 2012 and
2013 is 36,296 tons.
    (ii) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 690
tons.
    (iii) The SO2 Indian country new unit set-aside for 2012
and 2013 is 36 tons.
    (iv) The SO2 trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is
27,556 tons.
    (v) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter
is 523 tons.
    (vi) The SO2 Indian country new unit set-aside for 2014
and thereafter is 28 tons.
* * * * *
    (11) Ohio. (i) The SO2 trading budget for 2012 and 2013
is 315,393 tons.
    (ii) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is
6,308 tons.
    (iii) [Reserved]
    (iv) The SO2 trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is
142,240 tons.
    (v) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter
is 2,845 tons.
    (vi) [Reserved]
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) The SO2 variability limit for Indiana is 29,961
tons.
* * * * *
    (9) The SO2 variability limit for New York is 4,960
tons.
* * * * *
    (11) The SO2 variability limit for Ohio is 25,603 tons.
* * * * *

0
4. Section 97.710 is amended by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a)(2)(iv) and (v);
0
b. Revising paragraphs (a)(3), (5), and (6); and
0
c. Revising paragraphs (b)(2), (3), (5), and (6) to read as follows:

Sec.  97.710  State SO2 Group 2 trading budgets, new unit set-asides,
Indian country new unit set-aside, and variability limits.

    (a) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iv) The SO2 trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is
135,565 tons.
    (v) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter
is 2,711 tons.
    (vi) * * *
    (3) Kansas. (i) The SO2 trading budget for 2012 and 2013
is 41,980 tons.
    (ii) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is 798
tons.
    (iii) The SO2 Indian country new unit set-aside for 2012
and 2013 is 42 tons.
    (iv) The SO2 trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is
41,980 tons.
    (v) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter
is 798 tons.
    (vi) The SO2 Indian country new unit set-aside for 2014
and thereafter is 42 tons.
* * * * *
    (5) Nebraska. (i) The SO2 trading budget for 2012 and
2013 is 68,162 tons.
    (ii) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is
2,658 tons.
    (iii) The SO2 Indian country new unit set-aside for 2012
and 2013 is 68 tons.
    (iv) The SO2 trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is
68,162 tons.
    (v) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter
is 2,658 tons.
    (vi) The SO2 Indian country new unit set-aside for 2014
and thereafter is 68 tons.
    (6) South Carolina. (i) The SO2 trading budget for 2012
and 2013 is 96,633 tons.
    (ii) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2012 and 2013 is
1,836 tons.
    (iii) The SO2 Indian country new unit set-aside for 2012
and 2013 is 97 tons.
    (iv) The SO2 trading budget for 2014 and thereafter is
96,633 tons.
    (v) The SO2 new unit set-aside for 2014 and thereafter
is 1,836 tons.
    (vi) The SO2 Indian country new unit set-aside for 2014
and thereafter is 97 tons.
* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (2) The SO2 variability limit for Georgia is 24,402
tons.
    (3) The SO2 variability limit for Kansas is 7,556 tons.
* * * * *
    (5) The SO2 variability limit for Nebraska is 12,269
tons.
    (6) The SO2 variability limit for South Carolina is
17,394 tons.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2012-3704 Filed 2-17-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 192 (Wednesday, October 3, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60430-60431]
[FR Doc No: 2012-24338]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-9737-3]

Farm, Ranch, and Rural Communities Committee

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463,
EPA gives notice of a teleconference meeting of the Farm, Ranch, and
Rural Communities Committee (FRRCC). The FRRCC is a policy-oriented
committee that provides policy advice, information, and recommendations
to the EPA Administrator on a range of environmental issues and
policies that are of importance to agriculture and rural communities.
    The purpose of this teleconference is to discuss specific topics of
relevance for consideration by the Committee in order to provide advice
and insights to the Agency on environmental policies and programs that
affect and engage agriculture and rural communities.

DATES: Monday, October 22, 2012, from 12 p.m. until 2 p.m. Eastern
Daylight Time.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alicia Kaiser, Designated Federal
Officer<EMAIL_ADDRESS>202-564-7273, US EPA, Office of the
Administrator (1101A), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, DC
20460.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Members of the public wishing to gain access
to the teleconference, make brief oral comments, or provide a written
statement to the FRRCC must contact Alicia Kaiser, Designated Federal
Officer, at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER> by October 15, 2012.
    Meeting Access: For information on access or services for
individuals with disabilities or to request accommodations please
contact Alicia Kaiser at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER>,
preferably at least 10 days prior to the meeting, to give EPA as much
time as possible to process your request.

    Dated: September 19, 2012.
Alicia Kaiser,
Designated Federal Officer.
[FR Doc. 2012-24338 Filed 10-2-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 154 (Friday, August 9, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 39241-39244]
[FR Doc No: 2019-16899]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0602; Product Identifier 2019-NM-016-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing Company Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2010-26-01, which applies to certain The Boeing Company Model 777-200
series airplanes. AD 2010-26-01 requires installing a new insulation
blanket on the latch beam firewall of each thrust reverser (T/R) half.
Since AD 2010-26-01 was issued, the agency received a report that the
T/R affected by AD 2010-26-01 has the potential to be installed on
airplanes outside of the applicability of that AD. This proposed AD
would retain the requirements of 2010-26-01. This proposed AD would
also add airplanes to the applicability. For those airplanes, this
proposed AD would require an inspection to determine if the installed
T/R has an affected part number and, if an affected part number is
found, installation of a new insulation blanket. The FAA is proposing
this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by September
23, 2019.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail address above between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS),
2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; internet https://www.myboeingfleet.com. You may
view this service information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch,
2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2019-
0602; or in person at Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains
this NPRM, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other
information. The street address for Docket Operations is in the
ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly
after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Laubaugh, Aerospace Engineer,
Propulsion Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des
Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed
under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2019-0602;
Product Identifier 2019-NM-016-AD'' at the beginning of your comments.
The FAA specifically invites comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this NPRM. The FAA will
consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this
NPRM because of those comments.
    The FAA will post all comments we receive, without change, to
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you
provide. The FAA will also post a report summarizing each substantive
verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The FAA issued AD 2010-26-01, Amendment 39-16540 (75 FR 78594,
December 16, 2010) (``AD 2010-26-01''), for certain Model 777-200
series airplanes. AD 2010-26-01 requires installing a new insulation
blanket on the latch beam firewall of each T/R half. AD 2010-26-01
resulted from an in-flight shutdown due to an engine fire indication;
an under-cowl engine fire was extinguished after landing. We issued AD
2010-26-01 to prevent a fire from entering the cowl or strut area,
which could weaken T/R parts and result in reduced structural integrity
of the T/R, possible separation of T/R parts during flight, and
consequent damage to the airplane and injury to people or damage to
property on the ground.

Actions Since AD 2010-26-01 Was Issued

    Since AD 2010-26-01 was issued, the agency received a report that
the T/R affected by AD 2010-26-01 has the potential to be installed on
airplanes outside of the applicability of that AD. Therefore, the
applicability in this proposed AD has been revised to specify The
Boeing Company Model 777-200 series airplanes, equipped with General
Electric Company (GE) GE90-76B, -85B, -90B, or -94B engines.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    The FAA reviewed Boeing Service Bulletin 777-78A0066, Revision 3,
dated April 28, 2011. This service information describes procedures for
installing a new insulation blanket on the latch beam firewall of each
T/R half. The installation includes, for certain airplanes, inspecting
to determine if fitting part number 315W1436-4 is installed on the aft
latch beam of the right side T/R and, for affected fittings, cutting
the clevis from the affected fitting.
    This proposed AD would also require Boeing Alert Service Bulletin
777-78A0066, Revision 2, dated April 8, 2010, which the Director of the
Federal Register approved for incorporation by reference as of January
20, 2011 (75 FR 78594, December 16, 2010).
    This service information is reasonably available because the
interested parties have access to it through their normal course of
business or by the means identified in the ADDRESSES section.

FAA's Determination

    The FAA is proposing this AD because the agency evaluated all the
relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described
previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same
type design.

Proposed AD Requirements

    This proposed AD would retain all requirements of AD 2010-26-01.
This proposed AD would also add airplanes to the applicability. For
those airplanes, this proposed AD would require an inspection to
determine if the installed T/R has an affected part number and, if an
affected part number is found, installation of a new insulation
blanket.

Costs of Compliance

    The FAA estimates that this proposed AD affects 25 airplanes of
U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with
this proposed AD:

                                                                     Estimated Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Action                      Labor cost               Parts cost                  Cost per  product             Cost on  U.S. operators
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blanket installation (retained       7 work-hours x $85     Up to $5,253..............  Up to $5,848....................  Up to $122,808.
 actions from AD 2010-26-01) (21      per hour = $595.
 airplanes).
Inspection and blanket installation  Up to 13 work-hours x  Up to $7,529..............  Up to $8,634....................  Up to $34,536.
 (new proposed action) (4             $85 per hour = Up to
 airplanes).                          $1,105.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs,
describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
    The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, ``General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.
    This proposed AD is issued in accordance with authority delegated
by the Executive Director, Aircraft Certification Service, as
authorized by FAA Order 8000.51C. In accordance with that order,
issuance of ADs is normally a function of the Compliance and
Airworthiness Division, but during this transition period, the
Executive Director has delegated the authority to issue ADs applicable
to transport category airplanes and associated appliances to the
Director of the System Oversight Division.

Regulatory Findings

    The FAA has determined that this proposed AD would not have
federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD
would not have 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.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that the proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by removing Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2010-26-01, Amendment 39-16540 (75 FR 78594, December 16, 2010), and
adding the following new AD:

The Boeing Company: Docket No. FAA-2019-0602; Product Identifier
2019-NM-016-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    The FAA must receive comments on this AD action by September 23,
2019.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD replaces AD 2010-26-01, Amendment 39-16540 (75 FR 78594,
December 16, 2010) (``AD 2010-26-01'').

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 777-200 series
airplanes, certificated in any category, equipped with General
Electric Company (GE) GE90-76B, -85B, -90B, or -94B engines.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 78, Engine
exhaust.

(e) Unsafe Condition

    This AD was prompted by a report of an in-flight shutdown due to
an engine fire indication; an under-cowl engine fire was
extinguished after landing and a determination that additional
airplanes are affected. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent a fire
from entering the cowl or strut area, which could weaken thrust
reverser (T/R) parts and result in reduced structural integrity of
the T/R, possible separation of T/R parts during flight, and
consequent damage to the airplane and injury to people or damage to
property on the ground.

(f) Compliance

    Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified,
unless already done.

(g) Retained Installation of Insulation Blanket, With Revised Service
Information

    This paragraph restates the requirements of paragraph (g) of AD
2010-26-01, with revised service information. For airplanes
identified in Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-78A0066, Revision 2,
dated April 8, 2010: Within 60 months or 4,500 flight cycles after
January 20, 2011 (the effective date of AD 2010-26-01), whichever is
first, install a new insulation blanket on the latch beam firewall
of each T/R half by doing all the applicable actions specified in
the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service Bulletin 777-
78A0066, Revision 3, dated April 28, 2011.

(h) New Requirement: Installation of Insulation Blanket for Additional
Airplanes

    For airplanes not identified in paragraph (g) of this AD: Within
60 months or 4,500 flight cycles after the effective date of this
AD, whichever is first, inspect to determine if the installed T/R
has any affected part number as identified in paragraphs (h)(1)
through (h)(5) of this AD. If an affected T/R is found or if it
cannot be determined which T/R is installed, within 60 months or
4,500 flight cycles after the effective date of this AD, whichever
is first, install a new insulation blanket on the latch beam
firewall of each T/R half by doing all the applicable actions
specified in the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Service
Bulletin 777-78A0066, Revision 3, dated April 28, 2011, except as
specified in paragraph (i) of this AD. A review of airplane
maintenance records is acceptable in lieu of this inspection if it
can be conclusively determined from that review that the installed
T/R is not an affected T/R. A review of airplane maintenance records
is also acceptable in lieu of this inspection if it can be
conclusively determined from that review that an affected T/R is
installed and the actions specified in Boeing Service Bulletin 777-
78A0066, Revision 3, dated April 28, 2011, have already been done on
that T/R.
    (1) 315W1001-XX (all--where ``XX'' is any combination of numbers
and letters that follow the dash).
    (2) 315W1295-1 through 315W1295-222 inclusive.
    (3) 315W1295-5001 through 315W1295-5222 inclusive.
    (4) 315W1295-5501 through 315W1295-5722 inclusive.
    (5) 315W1295-6101 through 315W1295-6322 inclusive.

(i) Exceptions to Service Information Specification

    (1) Boeing Service Bulletin 777-78A0066, Revision 3, dated April
28, 2011, defines Group 1 as ``all 777-200 airplanes with GE90
engines through line number 413 with a forward insulation blanket;''
however for paragraph (h) of this AD, Group 1 is defined as ``all
777-200 airplanes with GE90 engines with a forward insulation
blanket.''
    (2) Boeing Service Bulletin 777-78A0066, Revision 3, dated April
28, 2011, defines Group 2 as ``all 777-200 airplanes with GE90
engines through line number 413 without a forward insulation
blanket;'' however for paragraph (h) of this AD, Group 2 is defined
as ``all 777-200 airplanes with GE90 engines without a forward
insulation blanket.''
    (3) Boeing Service Bulletin 777-78A0066, Revision 3, dated April
28, 2011, defines Group 2 Configuration 1 as ``all 777-200 airplanes
with GE90 engines through line number 413 without a forward
insulation blanket and without the fitting assembly at the aft
insulation blanket location;'' however for paragraph (h) of this AD,
Group 2 Configuration 1 is defined as ``all 777-200

airplanes with GE90 engines without a forward insulation blanket and
without the fitting assembly at the aft insulation blanket
location.''
    (4) Boeing Service Bulletin 777-78A0066, Revision 3, dated April
28, 2011, defines Group 2 Configuration 2 as ``all 777-200 airplanes
with GE90 engines through line number 413 without a forward
insulation blanket and with the fitting assembly at the aft
insulation blanket location;'' however for paragraph (h) of this AD,
Group 2 Configuration 2 is defined as ``all 777-200 airplanes with
GE90 engines without a forward insulation blanket and with the
fitting assembly at the aft insulation blanket location.''

(j) Credit for Previous Actions

    This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in
paragraphs (g) and (h) of this AD, if those actions were performed
before the effective date of this AD using the service information
specified in paragraphs (j)(1), (j)(2), or (j)(3) of this AD.
    (1) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-78A0066, dated June 5,
2008.
    (2) Boeing Service Bulletin 777-78A0066, Revision 1, dated March
12, 2009.
    (3) Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-78A0066, Revision 2, dated
April 8, 2010.

(k) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs)

    (1) The Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to
approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found
in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request
to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District
Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the
manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the
person identified in paragraph (l)(1) of this AD. Information may be
emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate
principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager
of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding
district office.
    (3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD
if it is approved by The Boeing Company Organization Designation
Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle
ACO Branch, FAA, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair
method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet
the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must
specifically refer to this AD.
    (4) AMOCs approved previously for AD 2010-26-01 are approved as
AMOCs for the corresponding provisions of paragraph (g) of this AD.

(l) Related Information

    (1) For more information about this AD, contact James Laubaugh,
Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch,
2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-231-
3622; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services
(C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-
5600; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. You may view this referenced service
information at the FAA, Transport Standards Branch, 2200 South 216th
St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on July 30, 2019.
Dionne Palermo,
Acting Director, System Oversight Division, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2019-16899 Filed 8-8-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 83 (Monday, May 1, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 26512-26514]
[FR Doc No: 2023-09155]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2023-0342]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Graduate Boat Parade, Sturgeon Bay, WI

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing to establish a temporary safety
zone for certain waters of Sturgeon Bay, WI. This action is necessary
to provide for the safety of life on these navigable waters during the
boat parade for the Graduates of Sturgeon Bay High School on June 3,
2023. This proposed rulemaking would restrict usage by persons and
vessels within the safety zone. At no time during the effective period
may non-parade vessels transit the waters of Sturgeon Bay between the
Highway 42 Bridge and Michigan Street Bridge. These restrictions would
apply to all vessels during the effective period unless authorized by
the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan or a designated representative.
We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before May 16, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-

2023-0342 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://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 Chief Petty Officer Jeromy Sherrill,
Sector Lake Michigan Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard;
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    On April 10, 2023, the principal of Sturgeon Bay High School
notified the Coast Guard that they will be conducting a boat parade for
graduates of the Class of 2023 on June 3, 2023 from 11:15 a.m. through
1 p.m. The boat parade will begin at Madelyn Marine, NW of Highway 42
bridge, proceed NW to the Michigan Street Bridge, cross the channel
towards the Maritime Museum, then proceed SE, crossing back across the
channel and ending at Madelyn Marine. The Captain of the Port has
determined that potential hazards associated with the boat parade would
be a safety concern for anyone within the safety zone that is not
participating in the boat parade.
    The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of vessels
and the navigable waters of Sturgeon Bay between the Highway 42 Bridge
and Michigan Street Bridge during the 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 Captain of the Port is proposing to establish a safety zone
from 10 a.m. through 2 p.m. on June 3, 2023. The safety zone would
cover all navigable waters of Sturgeon Bay between the Highway 42
Bridge and Michigan Street Bridge. The duration of the zone is intended
to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters before,
during, and after the boat parade event. No vessels or person would be
permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from
the Captain of the Port or a designated representative. 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. 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).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the
characteristics of the safety zone. The safety zone created by this
proposed rule will relatively small and is designed to minimize its
impact on navigable waters. This proposed rule will prohibit entry into
certain navigable waters of Sturgeon Bay, WI, and it is not anticipated
to exceed 2 hours in duration. Thus, restrictions on vessel movement
within that particular area are expected to be minimal. Moreover, under
certain conditions vessels may still transit through the safety zone
when permitted by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan.

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 proposed 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 proposed 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 rulemaking would
affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction
and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for
compliance, please call or email 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 call or email 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 rulemaking
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 a safety
zone lasting 4 hours that would prohibit entry within a relatively
small portion of Sturgeon Bay. Normally such actions are categorically
excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A,
Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A preliminary
Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is
available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see
the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. 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 call or email 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 https://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using https://www.regulations.gov, call or email 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 https://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and
submissions in response to this document, see DHS's eRulemaking System
of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).
    Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket,
and all public comments, will be in our online docket at https://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 165

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority: 46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051, 70124; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1,
6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
00170.1, Revision No. 01.3.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T09-0342 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T09-0342  Safety Zone; Graduate Boat Parade, Sturgeon Bay, WI

    (a) Location. All navigable waters of Sturgeon Bay between the
Highway 42 Bridge and Michigan Street Bridge.
    (b) Enforcement Period. The safety zone described in paragraph (a)
would be effective on June 3, 2023 from 10 a.m. through 2 p.m.
    (c) Regulations.
    (1) In accordance with the general regulations in section 165.23,
entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety zone is
prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Lake Michigan
(COTP) or a designated representative.
    (2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may
be permitted by the COTP or a designated representative.
    (3) The ``designated representative'' of the COTP is any Coast
Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty officer who has been designated
by the COTP to act on his or her behalf.
    (4) Persons and vessel operators desiring to enter or operate
within the safety zone during the boat parade must contact the COTP or
an on-scene representative to obtain permission to do so. The COTP or
an 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 COTP or an on-scene
representative.

    Dated: April 25, 2023.
Doreen McCarthy,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Alternate Captain of the Port Lake
Michigan.
[FR Doc. 2023-09155 Filed 4-28-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


 From:       Richard Krock<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

  To:         Jodi Howard/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

  Cc:         Mary Bachynsky<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>"Kevin
              Bloomer (kbloomer@westlake.com)"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Mark Garza<EMAIL_ADDRESS>"'Sistrunk, Otis J.
              (PED)'"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>JC Walker<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

  Date:       10/19/2009 07:14 PM

  Subject:    PVC MACT Section 114 Request Survey Request

Dear Ms. Howard,

The attached file contains our first set of questions that The Vinyl
Institute members have compiled in order to clarify some of the
information requested in the subject survey.  Please review the
questions and return your responses to those copied on this e-mail.  If
you post the answers at a designated EPA portal, please forward the
pathway to us.  Your quick clarification to our questions is appreciated
so that those compiling the significant amount of data can successfully
complete the preparation of the survey for the November 30, 2009
deadline.  Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions or
comments.  Thank you.

*Please note our new contact information*

Richard Krock
Technical Director

The Vinyl Institute
1737 King Street Suite 390
Alexandria, VA 22314
Direct:<PHONE_NUMBER>
Mobile:<PHONE_NUMBER>
Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>
Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>http://www.vinylinfo.org
http://www.vinylindesign.com

(See attached file: Survey Questions Rollup as of 10-19-09.doc)(Embedded
image moved to file: pic09425.jpg)VI Logo