[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 12 (Wednesday, January 20, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 2989-2991]
[FR Doc No: 2016-01017]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2015-1121]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Upper Mississippi River and Illinois River, MO and
IL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing emergency temporary safety
zones for all waters of the Upper Mississippi River (UMR) between miles
109.9 and 185.5 and all waters of the Illinois River (ILR) between
miles 0 and 128.9. The emergency safety zones are needed to protect
persons, property, and infrastructure from potential damage and safety
hazards associated with high waters. Entry of vessels or persons into
these zones is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain
of the Port (COTP). Deviation from the safety zones may be requested
and will be considered on a case-by-case basis as specifically
authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) or a designated
representative.

DATES: This rule is effective without actual notice from January 20,
2016 until 11:59 p.m. on January 22, 2016. For the purposes of
enforcement, actual notice will be used from 3:00 p.m. on December 28,
2015 until January 20, 2016.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2015-1121 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email LCDR Sean Peterson, Chief of Prevention, U.S. Coast
Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

BNM Broadcast Notice to Mariners
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port
DHS Department of Homeland Security
E.O. Executive order
FR Federal Register
ILR Illinois River
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Pub. L. Public Law
Sec.  Section
UMR Upper Mississippi River
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because of the increased safety risks caused
by high waters on the UMR and ILR. On December 28, 2015, the Coast
Guard determined that immediate action is necessary to establish
emergency safety zones to protect life and property from the hazards
associated with and resulting from high waters. It is impracticable to
publish an NPRM because we must establish these safety zones by
December 28, 2015. Broadcast Notices to Mariners (BNM) and information
sharing with waterway users will update mariners of the closures and
enforcement times during this emergency situation.
    We are issuing this rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast
Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less than 30
days after publication in the Federal Register. Providing 30 days
notice would be contrary to public interest because immediate action is
needed to protect life and property from the hazards associated with
and resulting from high waters.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C.
1231. The Captain of the Port Upper Mississippi River determined that
potential hazards associated with and resulting from high waters and
related recovery efforts are present in the area. These hazards require
additional safety measures in the form of safety zones extending from
mile 109.9 to 185.5 on the UMR and mile 0 to 128.9 on the ILR to
protect those operating in the area and for the Coast Guard to maintain
navigational safety.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    The Coast Guard is establishing two temporary emergency safety
zones prohibiting access to the UMR between miles 109.9 and 185.5 and
the ILR between miles 0 and 128.9, extending the entire widths of the
rivers beginning at 3:00 p.m. on December 28, 2015, through 11:59 p.m.
on January 22, 2016 or until waters recede and conditions allow for
safe navigation, whichever occurs earlier. Deviation from the emergency
safety zones may be requested and will be considered on a case-by-case
basis as specifically authorized by the COTP or a designated
representative. Deviation requests will

be considered and reviewed on a case-by-case basis. The COTP may be
contacted by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or can be reached by VHF-FM
channel 16.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    E.O.s 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and
benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits.
E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and
benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting
flexibility. This rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under E.O. 12866. Accordingly, it has not been
reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. This rule establishes
temporary emergency safety zones placing restrictions on vessels
transiting the UMR between miles 109.9 and 185.5 and the ILR between
miles 0 and 128.9. Notifications of enforcement times will be
communicated to the marine community via BNM. The impacts on navigation
will be limited to ensure the safety of mariners and vessels during
hazardous conditions associated with high waters.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zones may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V. A. above, this rule will not have significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that
this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
rule involves a closure of the UMR between miles 109.9 and 185.5 and
the ILR between miles 0 and 128.9. It is categorically excluded from
further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant
Instruction. A preliminary environmental analysis checklist supporting
this determination and a Categorical Exclusion Determination are
available in the docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any
comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this rule.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

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

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T08-1121 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T08-1121  Safety Zone; Upper Mississippi River between miles
109.9 and 185.5; and Illinois River between miles 0 and 128.9; MO and
IL.

    (a) Location. The following areas are safety zones:
    (1) All waters of the Upper Mississippi River between miles 109.9
and 185.5, extending the entire width of the river; and
    (2) All waters of the Illinois River between miles 0 and 128.9,
extending the entire width of the river.
    (b) Definitions. Designated representative means a Coast Guard
Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain, petty officer, or
other officers operating a Coast Guard vessel and a Federal, State, and
local officer designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port (COTP)
Upper Mississippi River in the enforcement of the safety zones.
    (c) Regulations. (1) Under the general safety zone regulations in
subpart C of this part, you may not enter the safety zones described in
paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the COTP or the
COTP's designated representative.
    (2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's
representative via VHF-FM channel 16, or through Coast Guard Sector
Upper Mississippi River at<PHONE_NUMBER>. Those in the safety zones must
comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP
or the COTP's designated representative.
    (d) Enforcement periods. This rule is effective from 3:00 p.m. on
December 28, 2015 through 11:59 p.m. on January 22, 2016, or until
waters recede and conditions allow for safe navigation, whichever
occurs first.
    (e) Informational broadcasts. The COTP or a designated
representative will inform the public through broadcasts notice to
mariners of the enforcement period for the emergency safety zones as
well as any changes in the dates and times of enforcement.

    Dated: December 28, 2015.
R.S. Rhodes,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard, Alternate Captain of the Port Upper
Mississippi River.
[FR Doc. 2016-01017 Filed 1-19-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 196 (Tuesday, October 11, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 70025-70029]
[FR Doc No: 2016-24375]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 70

[EPA-R07-OAR-2016-0571; FRL-9953-77-Region 7]

Approval of Missouri's Air Quality Implementation Plans,
Operating Permits Program, and 112(l) Plan; Construction Permits
Required

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking direct final
action to approve revisions to Missouri's State Implementation Plan
(SIP), Operating Permits Program, and 112(l) Plan. The April 6, 2016,
request from Missouri revises fees for permitting services provided by
the air quality program, including construction permit applications and
operating permit applications. Missouri also removed the basic
operating permit requirement in their ``Operating Permits'' rule for
incinerators with emissions less than the de minimis levels. While EPA
has never approved the basic operating permit program into Missouri's
SIP or Missouri's Operating Permits Program, one statement on
incinerators in the approved SIP and Operating Permits Program is
removed by the submission. This statement applied the ``Operating
Permits'' rule to all incinerators within the State. Any permittees
with incinerators already required to have either Intermediate State
Operating Permits or part 70 Operating Permits will still have the same
permitting requirements. This revision does not exempt any incinerators
from appropriate permitting. Likewise, any future permittees with
incinerators under the former version of the SIP and Operating Permits
Program would have required either an Intermediate State Operating
Permit or a part 70 Operating Permit will still have the same

permitting requirement under the revised SIP and Operating Permits
Program. Finally the submission from Missouri makes non-substantive
style changes.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective December 12, 2016,
without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by November
10, 2016. If EPA receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely
withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register informing
the public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2016-0571, to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e. on the Web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jed D. Wolkins, Environmental
Protection Agency, Air Planning and Development Branch, 11201 Renner
Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by email at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' refer to EPA. This section provides additional information by
addressing the following:

I. What is being addressed in this document?
II. What part 52 revision is EPA approving?
III. What part 70 Revision is EPA approving?
IV. What 112(l) revision is EPA approving?
V. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?
VI. What action is EPA taking?

I. What is being addressed in this document?

    The submission from Missouri revises 10 CSR 10-6.060, Construction
Permits Required, and 10 CSR 10-6.065, Operating Permits. Missouri's
revisions increase fees for permitting services provided by the air
quality program, including construction permit applications and
operating permit applications. Missouri also removed the basic
operating permit requirement, under 10 CSR 10-6.065, for incinerators
with emissions less than the de minimis levels. While EPA has never
approved the basic operating permit program into the Missouri's SIP or
Missouri's Operating Permits Program, one statement on incinerators, 10
CSR 6.065(1)(B), in the approved SIP and Operating Permits Program is
removed by the submission. This statement applied 10 CSR 10-6.065 to
all incinerators within the State. Any Permittees with incinerators
already required to have either Intermediate State Operating Permits or
part 70 Operating Permits will still have the same permitting
requirements. This revision does not exempt any incinerators from
appropriate permitting. Likewise, any future permittees with
incinerators under the former version of the SIP and Operating Permits
Program would have required either an Intermediate State Operating
Permits or a part 70 Operating Permits will still have the same
permitting requirement under the revised SIP and Operating Permits
Program. Finally the submission from Missouri makes non-substantive
style changes.

II. What Part 52 revision is EPA approving?

    The revisions increase the fees charged for construction and
operating permits. After stakeholder outreach, Missouri has increased
fees in order to ensure that the department can continue to provide
services and to keep the Air program solvent. The De minimis, the
Minor, and the Temporary/Pilot construction permit filing fees
increased from one hundred dollars ($100) to two hundred fifty dollars
($250). The New Source Review (NSR), the Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD), the Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAP), and the
Initial Plantwide applicability limit (PAL) construction permit filing
fees increased from one hundred dollars ($100) to five thousand dollars
($5,000). The Renewal PAL construction permit filing fee increased from
one hundred dollars ($100) to two thousand five hundred dollars
($2,500). The Portable Source Relocation Request construction permit
filing fee increased from two hundred dollars ($200) to three hundred
dollars ($300). The processing fees for all types of construction
permits, except the Portable Source Relocation Request, increased from
fifty dollars per hour ($50/hr) to seventy-five dollars per hour ($75/
hr). The initial and renewal Intermediate State Operating Permit and
part 70 Operating Permit filing fees increased from a flat one hundred
dollar ($100) fee to a variable fee based on number of units and
additional complexity. The operating permit filing fees have a cap of
six thousand dollars ($6,000).
    Specifically, revisions in the SIP add new fee tables within the
following rule sections:
     10 CSR 10-6.060(10)--Permit Fees and Amendments;
     10 CSR 10-6.065(5)--Intermediate State Operating Permits;
and
     10 CSR 10-6.065(6)--Part 70 Operating Permits.
    Revisions in the SIP amend the following rules to reference the new
fee tables as follows:
     10 CSR 10-6.060(4)--Portable Equipment;
     10 CSR 10-6.060(10)(A)--Permit Fees and Amendments; and
     10 CSR 10-6.060(12)(A)--Appendix A, Permit Review
Procedures.
    Revision in the SIP remove the blanket applicability of operating
permits to incinerators as follows:
     10 CSR 10-6.065(1)(B)--Applicability, Incinerators.
    Revisions in the SIP also make non-substantive style changes
throughout.
    Details of Missouri's SIP revisions can be found in the Technical
Support Document located in this docket.

II. What Part 70 revision is EPA approving?

    The initial and renewal Intermediate State Operating Permit and
part 70 Operating Permit filing fees increased from a flat one hundred
dollar ($100) fee to a variable fee based on number of units and
additional complexity. The filing fee has a cap of six thousand dollars
($6,000).
    Revisions in part 70 add new fee tables within the following rule
sections:
     10 CSR 10-6.065(5)--Intermediate State Operating Permits;
and
     10 CSR 10-6.065(6)--Part 70 Operating Permits.
    Revision in the SIP remove the blanket applicability of operating
permits to incinerators as follows:
     10 CSR 10-6.065(1)(B)--Applicability, Incinerators.
    Revisions in the SIP also make non-substantive style changes
throughout.
    Details of Missouri's part 70 revisions can be found in the
Technical Support Document located in this docket.

IV. What 112(l) revision is EPA approving?

    Missouri's submission indicated that the revisions made to 10 CSR
10-6.065 ``include any revisions necessary to retain 112(l) approval
under the Clean Air Act.'' The John S. Seitz Memo of April 13, 1993,
titled ``Title V Program Approval Criteria for Section 112
Activities,'' provides guidance on revisions to state Title V programs
and how they intersect with section 112 requirements. It states, ``As
for part 70 program revisions, no formal amendment to the initial title
V program should typically be needed with respect to section 112
requirements taking effect after the effective date of the program. The
State's up-front commitment and demonstrations (i.e., legal authorities
and mechanisms to adopt additional section 112 requirements) coupled
with EPA's ability to review individual permits and to audit part 70
programs periodically should provide reasonable assurance of adequate
State implementation.'' The guidance further explains that, ``The
State, however, remains responsible for maintaining and enhancing as
necessary its authority to implement section 112, including any new
regulations. In light of the demonstrations and/or commitments required
for part 70 approval, the EPA will presume that a State's request for
approval of its operating permits program will be an implicit request
under section 112(l) for delegation of authority to implement
Federally-promulgated section 112 requirements in the same form in
which EPA issues them.'' Our September 25, 1995, 112(l) delegation to
Missouri remains in effect.

V. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?

    The state submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP
submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The State of Missouri
provided the rule changes for public notice on September 29, 2016. The
State of Missouri held a public hearing on the rule changes on October
29, 2016. The submission also satisfied the completeness criteria of 40
CFR part 51, appendix V. In addition, as explained above and in more
detail in the technical support document which is part of this docket,
the revision meets the substantive SIP requirements of the CAA,
including section 110 and implementing regulations.

VI. What action is EPA taking?

    We are publishing this direct final rule without a prior proposed
rule because we view this as a noncontroversial action and anticipate
no adverse comment. The Missouri conducted outreach with stakeholders
prior to proposing the rule changes; and, conducted public notice on
the rule changes. The Missouri received substantive comments on one
topic, the fee for PAL renewal. Missouri revised the fee based on those
comments. Based on the rulemaking history, we do not anticipate adverse
comments. However, in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of this Federal
Register, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the
proposed rule to approve the SIP and Operating Permit Program if
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 will address all public
comments in any subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule.

Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of Missouri
Construction Permit Required Rule, 10 CSR 10-6.060, and Operating
Permit Rule, 10 CSR 10-6.065. Therefore, these materials have been
approved by EPA for inclusion in the State implementation plan, have
been incorporated by reference by EPA into that plan, are fully
Federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the
effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be
incorporated by reference by the Director of the Federal Register in
the next update to the SIP compilation.\1\ EPA has made, and will
continue to make, these documents generally available electronically
through www.regulations.gov and at the appropriate EPA office (see the
ADDRESSES section of this preamble for more information).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011). This action is also not subject to Executive Order
13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rulemaking will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
Because this rulemaking would approve pre-existing requirements under
state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond
that required by state law, it 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).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    This action also does not have Federalism implications because it
does 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 (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999). Thus Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action.
This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal
standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of
power and responsibilities established in the CAA. This rulemaking also
is not subject to Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997) because it approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State
to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to
disapprove a state submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA when it reviews a state
submission,

to use VCS in place of a state submission that otherwise satisfies the
provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) do not apply. This action does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    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 proposed 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 not a ``major rule'' as defined
by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by December 12, 2016. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 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.
Parties with objections to this direct final rule are encouraged to
file a comment in response to the parallel notice of proposed
rulemaking for this action published in the proposed rules section of
this Federal Register, rather than file an immediate petition for
judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can withdraw
this direct final rule and address the comment in the final rulemaking.
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

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

40 CFR Part 70

    Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control,
Intergovernmental relations, Operating permits, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: September 27, 2016.
Mike Brincks,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 7.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR parts 52
and 70 as set forth below:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart AA--Missouri

0
2. Section 52.1320(c) is amended by revising the entries for 10-6.060
and 10-6.065 to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1320  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                        EPA-Approved Missouri Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      State        EPA Approval
      Missouri citation              Title       effective date        date                 Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Missouri Department of Natural Resources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Chapter 6--Air Quality Standards, Definitions, Sampling and Reference Methods, and Air Pollution Control
                                      Regulations for the State of Missouri
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
10-6.060.....................  Construction             3/30/16  10/11/16 and     --Provisions of the 2010 PM2.5
                                Permits                           [Insert          PSD--Increments, SILs and
                                Required.                         Federal          SMCs rule (75 FR 64865,
                                                                  Register         October 20, 2010) relating to
                                                                  citation].       SILs and SMCs that were
                                                                                affected by the January 22,
                                                                                2013 U.S. Court of Appeals
                                                                                decision are not SIP
                                                                                approved.
                                                                                --Provisions of the 2002 NSR
                                                                                reform rule relating to the
                                                                                Clean Unit Exemption,
                                                                                Pollution Control Projects,
                                                                                and exemption from
                                                                                recordkeeping provisions for
                                                                                certain sources using the
                                                                                actual-to-projected-actual
                                                                                emissions projections test
                                                                                are not SIP approved.
                                                                                --In addition, we have not
                                                                                approved Missouri's rule
                                                                                incorporating EPA's 2007
                                                                                revision of the definition of
                                                                                ``chemical processing
                                                                                plants'' (the ``Ethanol
                                                                                Rule,'' 72 FR 24060 (May 1,
                                                                                2007) or EPA's 2008
                                                                                ``fugitive emissions rule,''
                                                                                73 FR 77882 (December 19,
                                                                                2008).
                                                                                --Although exemptions
                                                                                previously listed in 10 CSR
                                                                                10-6.060 have been
                                                                                transferred to 10 CSR 10-
                                                                                6.061, the Federally-approved
                                                                                SIP continues to include the
                                                                                following exemption,
                                                                                ``Livestock and livestock
                                                                                handling systems from which
                                                                                the only potential
                                                                                contaminant is odorous gas.''

                                                                                --Section 9, pertaining to
                                                                                hazardous air pollutants, is
                                                                                not SIP approved.
                                                                                --The phrase ``including the
                                                                                revision published at 75 FR
                                                                                31606-07 (effective August 2,
                                                                                2010)'' in subsection (8)(A)
                                                                                is not SIP approved.

                                                  * * * * * * *
10-6.065.....................  Operating                3/30/16  10/11/16 and     Section (4) Basic State
                                Permits.                          [Insert          Operating Permits, has not
                                                                  Federal          been approved as part of the
                                                                  Register         SIP. Subparagraphs
                                                                  citation].       (2)(A)2.A., (2)(A)2.B., and
                                                                                the words ``except that'' in
                                                                                paragraph (2)(A)2 have not
                                                                                been approved as part of the
                                                                                SIP.

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

PART 70--STATE OPERATING PERMIT PROGRAMS

0
3. The authority citation for part 70 continues to read as follows:

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

0
4. Amend Appendix A to part 70 by adding paragraph (gg) under Missouri
to read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 70--Approval Status of State and Local Operating
Permits Programs

* * * * *

Missouri

* * * * *
    (gg) The Missouri Department of Natural Resources submitted
revisions to Missouri rule 10 CSR 10-6.065, ``Operating Permits'' on
April 6, 2016. We are approving this rule except for Section (4)
which relates to the State Basic Operating Permits; Subparagraph
(2)(A)2.A.; Subparagraph(2)(A)2.B.; and the words ``except that'' in
Paragraph (2)(A)2. The state effective date is March 30, 2016. This
revision is effective December 12, 2016.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2016-24375 Filed 10-7-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 72 (Friday, April 13, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 22221-22223]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8965]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2012-0052]
RIN 1625-AA87

Security Zones; North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Summit,
Chicago, IL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing four separate security zones
on both the waters and waterfront area of Chicago Harbor and the
Chicago River. These temporary security zones are intended to restrict
vessels, regardless of the mode of propulsion, and people from certain
land and water areas in Chicago Harbor and the Chicago River during the
NATO Summit and associated events, which will be held in Chicago from
May 16, 2012, through May 24, 2012. These security zones are necessary
to protect visiting government officials and dignitaries from the
potential dangers associated with a large scale, international
political event.

DATES: This rule is effective between 8 a.m. on May 16, 2012, and 8
a.m. on May 24, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as
documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket,
are part of docket USCG-2012-0052 and are available online at
www.regulations.gov. This material is also available for inspection or
copying at two locations: The Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S.
Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays and the U.S. Coast
Guard Sector Lake Michigan, 2420 South Lincoln Memorial Drive,
Milwaukee, WI 53207, between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, call or email CWO Jon Grob, Prevention Department,
Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan, Milwaukee, WI at<PHONE_NUMBER>,
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing material
in the docket, call Renee Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    On March 6, 2012, we published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) entitled Security Zones; G8/North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO) Summit, Chicago, Illinois in the Federal Register (77 FR 13232).
Although the G8 Summit is now planned to take place at Camp David
rather than in Chicago, which is discussed in more detail in the
following paragraph, the security zones addressed in the NPRM remain
the same. Thus, the Coast Guard views the relocation as having no
effect on the comment period. We received no letters commenting on the
proposed rule. No public meeting was requested, and none was held.

Background and Purpose

    Leaders from around the world will gather in Chicago this spring
for what was supposed to be two diplomatic summits hosted by President
Obama. Since the NPRM that preceded this temporary final rule was
published, on March 6, 2012, the G8 summit has been relocated to be
held at Camp David. This relocation, however, does not change the Coast
Guard security zones for this event. Rather, the NATO Summit remains a
highly political event that still demands the four separate security
zones that were originally detailed in the NPRM. The NATO Summit, along
with certain associated events, will take place in Chicago from May 16,
2012, through May 24, 2012.
    Considering the international, economical, and political objectives
of NATO along with the high concentration of dignitaries and political
figures, the NATO Summit is expected to draw significant domestic and
international media interest and also attract a large number of
protesters. Consequently, the Captain of the Port, Sector Lake
Michigan, has determined that the implementation of four separate
security zones is necessary to ensure the safety and security of those
who attend, participate, and visit the NATO Summit and any associated
events.

Discussion of Comments and Changes

    No comments were received regarding this rule. Since the NPRM
published back on March 6, 2012, the G8 Summit portion has been
relocated to Camp David. The NATO portion still demands the four
separate security zone structure that was originally proposed in the
NPRM. As discussed above, the Coast Guard views the relocation as
having no effect on the comment period. We made no changes to the
regulatory text from what we proposed in the NPRM.

Discussion of Rule

    To alleviate the safety and security concerns presented by the
international, economical, and political implications of NATO; the high
concentration of dignitaries and political figures; the expected
interest of domestic and international media; and the anticipated
presence of protesters; the Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan,
has determined that it is necessary to establish four separately
enforceable security zones. These zones allow for the closure of four
specific areas on and around the waterfront along both Chicago Harbor
and the Chicago River.
    The four temporary security zones will encompass:
    Security Zone A--This zone encompasses all U.S. navigable waters,
facilities, and shoreline within the arc of a circle with a 2000-yard
radius of the Burnham park hoist ramp with its center point located in
the approximate position 41[deg]51'37'' N, 087[deg]36'44'' W. [DATUM:
NAD 83].

    Security Zone B--This zone encompasses all U.S. navigable waters,
facilities, and shoreline within the arc of a circle with a 2000-yard
radius of the outer-most tip of the Chicago lock with its center point
located in the approximate position 41[deg]53'19'' N, 087[deg]36'17''
W. [DATUM: NAD 83].
    Security Zone C--This zone encompasses all U.S. navigable waters of
the Chicago River between the Western Gate of the Chicago Controlling
Works Lock which is located in approximate position 41[deg]53'18'' N,
087[deg]36'28'' W [DATUM: NAD 83] and the juncture of the north and
south branches of the Chicago River which is located in approximate
position 41[deg]53'11'' N, 087[deg]38'15'' W. [DATUM: NAD 83].
    Security Zone D--This zone encompasses all U.S. navigable waters of
the Chicago River between Mile Marker 322.0, which is in the vicinity
of the Loomis Street coal storage terminal slip, and Mile Marker 326.4,
which is in the vicinity of the Chicago Tribune Wharf. [DATUM: NAD 83].
    These security zones will be effective and enforced between 8 a.m.
on May 16, 2012, and 8 a.m. on May 24, 2012.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 165.33, no person or vessel, regardless
of the mode of propulsion, may enter or remain in any one of the
security zones established in this temporary rule without first
obtaining permission from the Captain of the Port Sector Lake Michigan.
The Captain of the Port Sector Lake Michigan, at his or her discretion,
may permit persons and vessels to enter the security zones established
in this temporary rule. The security zones created by this rule do not
prohibit members of the public from assembling on shore or expressing
from locations on shore their points of view to those attending the
NATO Summit.

Regulatory Analyses

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

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This temporary rule is not a significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits
under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not ``significant''
under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS). We conclude that this temporary rule is not a
significant regulatory action because we anticipate that it will have
minimal impact on the economy, will not interfere with other agencies,
will not adversely alter the budget of any grant or loan recipients,
and will not raise any novel legal or policy issues. Each security zone
has been designed to allow as much free transit of vessels as possible
while also preserving the security of the NATO Summit. Thus, vessels
may still transit portions of the affected waterways not implicated by
the security zones. Also, under certain conditions, vessels may still
transit through a security zone when permitted by the Captain of the
Port, Sector Lake Michigan. Moreover, the Captain of the Port, Sector
Lake Michigan, retains the discretion to suspend enforcement of any or
all these security zones when he deems necessary. On the whole, the
Coast Guard expects insignificant adverse impact to mariners from the
activation of these security zones

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this temporary rule would have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term
``small entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit
organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not
dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with
populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this temporary
rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
    This temporary rule would affect the following entities, some of
which might be small entities: The owners and operators of vessels,
regardless of the mode of propulsion, intending to transit or anchor in
the security zones established in this rule. These security zones would
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities for the same reasons discussed in the above Regulatory
Planning and Review section.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this temporary 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 temporary rule would economically affect it.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this temporary rule so that they can better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. If this
temporary rule would affect your small business, organization, or
governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its
provisions or options for compliance, please contact the Waterways
Management Department, Coast Guard Sector Lake Michigan, Milwaukee, WI
at<PHONE_NUMBER>. The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or object to this rule or any policy or action
of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

    This temporary rule calls for no new collection of information
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local
governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial
direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this temporary rule
under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications
for federalism.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

Taking of Private Property

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

Civil Justice Reform

    This temporary rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice

Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

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

Indian Tribal Governments

    This temporary rule does not have tribal implications under
Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this temporary rule under Executive Order 13211,
Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant
energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy. The Administrator of the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs has not designated it as a significant energy
action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
    This temporary rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we
did not consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this temporary rule under Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD and Department of Homeland Security Management Directive
5100.1, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have made a 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 temporary rule involves the
establishment of security zones and therefore, is categorically
excluded under paragraph 34(g) of the Instruction. An environmental
analysis check list supporting this determination is available in the
docket where indicated under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50
U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Pub. L.
107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T09-0052 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T09-0052  Security Zones; North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO) Summit, Chicago, Illinois.

    (a) Locations. The following areas are designated security zones:
    (1) Security Zone A--Security Zone A encompasses all U.S. navigable
waters, facilities, and shoreline within the arc of a circle with a
2000-yard radius of the Burnham park hoist ramp with its center point
located in the approximate position 41[deg]51'37'' N, 087[deg]36'44''
W. [DATUM: NAD 83].
    (2) Security Zone B--Security Zone B encompasses all U.S. navigable
waters, facilities, and shoreline within the arc of a circle with a
2000-yard radius of the outer most tip of the Chicago lock with its
center point located in the approximate position 41[deg]53'19'' N,
087[deg]36'17'' W. [DATUM: NAD 83].
    (3) Security Zone C--Security Zone C encompasses all U.S. navigable
waters of the Chicago River between the Western Gate of the Chicago
Controlling Works Lock which is located in approximate position
41[deg]53'18'' N, 087[deg]36'28'' W [DATUM: NAD 83] and the juncture of
the north and south branches of the Chicago River which is located in
approximate position 41[deg]53'11'' N, 087[deg]38'15'' W. [DATUM: NAD
83].
    (4) Security Zone D--Security D encompasses all U.S. navigable
waters of the Chicago River between Mile Marker 322.0, which is in the
vicinity of the Loomis Street coal storage terminal slip, and Mile
Marker 326.4, which is in the vicinity of the Chicago Tribune Wharf.
[DATUM: NAD 83].
    (b) Enforcement period. These security zones will be effective and
enforced between 8 a.m. on May 16, 2012, and 8 a.m. on May 24, 2012.
    (c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with Sec.  165.33, entry into
any area of these security zones is prohibited unless authorized by the
Coast Guard Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, or his or her
on-scene designated representative.
    (2) The designated representative of the Captain of the Port,
Sector Lake Michigan, is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty
officer who has been designated by the Captain of the Port, Sector Lake
Michigan, to act on his or her behalf.
    (3) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within any of the
security zones shall contact the Captain of the Port, Sector Lake
Michigan, or his or her on-scene designated representative to obtain
permission to do so. The Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, or
his or her on-scene designated representative may be contacted via VHF
Channel 16.
    (4) Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in any of
the security zones shall comply with all directions given by the
Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan, or his or her on-scene
designated representative.

    Dated: April 6, 2012.
M.W. Sibley,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Sector Lake Michigan.
[FR Doc. 2012-8965 Filed 4-12-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: May 27, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 102)]
[Notices]
[Page 30390-30391]
[DOCID:fr27my08-48]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No 12715-001]

Fairlawn Hydroelectric Company, LLC.; Notice of Intent To File
License Application, Filing of Pre-Application Document, Commencement
of Licensing Proceeding, Scoping Meetings, Solicitation of Comments on
the Pad and Scoping Document, and Identification of Issues and
Associated Study Requests

May 19, 2008.
    a. Type of Filing: Notice of Intent to File License Application and
Commencing Licensing Proceeding.
    b. Project No.: 12715-001.
    c. Date Filed: March 19, 2008.
    d. Submitted By: Fairlawn Hydroelectric Company, LLC.
    e. Name of Project: Jennings Randolph Hydroelectric Project.
    f. Location: At the Corps of Engineers' Jennings Randolph Dam on
the North Branch Potomac River in Garrett County, Maryland, and Mineral
County, West Virginia.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR Part 5 of the Commission's
Regulations.
    h. Potential Applicant Contact: Clifford Phillips, Fairlawn
Hydroelectric Company, LLC, 150 North Miller Road, Suite 450 C,
Fairlawn, Ohio 44333,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Michael Spencer<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(202)
502-6093.
    j. We are asking federal, state, local, and tribal agencies with
jurisdiction and/or special expertise with respect to environmental
issues to cooperate with us in the preparation of the environmental
document. Agencies who would like to request cooperating status should
follow the instructions for filing comments described in paragraph o
below. Cooperating agencies should note the Commission's policy that
agencies that cooperate in the preparation of the environmental
document cannot also intervene. See, 94 FERC ] 61,076 (2001).
    k. With this notice, we are initiating informal consultation with:
(a) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and/or NOAA Fisheries under
section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and the joint agency
regulations thereunder at 50 CFR Part 402; and (b) the State Historic
Preservation Officer, as required by section 106, National Historical
Preservation Act, and the implementing regulations of the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation at 36 CFR 800.2.
    l. With this notice, we are designating Fairlawn Hydroelectric
Company, LLC as the Commission's non-federal representative for
carrying out informal consultation, pursuant to Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act and section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act.
    m. Fairlawn Hydroelectric Company, LLC filed a Pre-Application
Document (PAD; including a proposed process plan and schedule) with the
Commission, pursuant to 18 CFR 5.6 of the Commission's regulations. The
Commission issued the scoping document for the proposed Jennings
Randolph Project on May 19, 2008.
    n. A copy of the PAD and the scoping document are available for
review at the Commission in the Public Reference Room or may be viewed
on the Commission's Web site (http://www.ferc.gov), using the
``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number, excluding the last three
digits in the docket number field to access the document. For
assistance, contact FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is
also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in
paragraph h.
    Register online at http://ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm to be notified
via e-mail of new filing and issuances related to this or other pending
projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.
    o. With this notice we are soliciting comments on the PAD and the
scoping document, as well as study requests. All comments on the PAD
and the scoping document, and study requests should be sent to the
address above in paragraph h. In addition, all comments on the PAD and
the scoping document, study requests, requests for cooperating agency
status, and all communications to and from Commission staff related to
the merits of the potential application (original and eight copies)
must be filed with the Commission at the following address: Kimberly D.
Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. All filings with the Commission must
include on the first page, the project name (Jennings Randolph Project)
and number (P-12715-001), and bear the heading ``Comments on Pre-
Application Document,'' ``Study Requests,'' ``Comments on Scoping
Document 1,'' ``Request for Cooperating Agency Status,'' or
``Communications to and from Commission Staff.'' Any individual or
entity interested in submitting study requests, commenting on the PAD
or the scoping document, and any agency requesting cooperating status
must do so by July 17, 2008.
    Comments on the PAD and the scoping document, study requests,
requests for cooperating agency status, and other permissible forms of
communications with the Commission may be filed electronically via the
Internet in lieu of paper. The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings. See 18 CFR 85.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions
on the Commission's Web site (http://www.ferc.gov) under the ``e-
filing'' link.
    p. Although our current intent is to prepare an environmental
assessment (EA), there is the possibility that an Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) will be required. Nevertheless, this meeting will
satisfy the NEPA scoping requirements, irrespective of whether an EA or
EIS is issued by the Commission.

Scoping Meetings

    Commission staff will hold two scoping meetings in the vicinity of
the project at the time and place noted below. The daytime meeting will
focus on resource agency, Indian tribes, and non-governmental
organization concerns, while the evening meeting is primarily for
receiving input from the public. We invite all interested individuals,
organizations, and agencies to attend one or both of the meetings, and
to assist staff in identifying particular study needs, as well as the
scope of environmental issues to be addressed in the environmental

document. The times and locations of these meetings are as follows:

Evening Scoping Meeting

    Date: Monday, June 16, 2008.
    Time: 6 p.m. (EST).
    Location: Will O' The Wisp Hotel, 20160 Garrett Highway, Oakland,
MD 21550.
    Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Daytime Scoping Meeting

    Date: Tuesday, June 17, 2008.
    Time: 10 a.m.
    Location: Same location.

    The scoping document, which outlines the issues to be addressed in
the environmental document, has been mailed to the individuals and
entities on the Commission's mailing list. Copies of the scoping
document will be available at the scoping meetings, and may be viewed
on the Web at http://www.ferc.gov, using the ``eLibrary'' link. Follow
the directions for accessing information in paragraph n. Depending on
the extent of comments received, a revised scoping document may or may
not be issued.

Site Visit

    Fairlawn Hydroelectric Company, LLC. will conduct a tour of the
proposed project site at 3 p.m. on Monday, June 16, 2008. All
participants should meet at the gated entrance to Jennings Randolph Dam
on Route 46 in West Virginia. All participants are responsible for
providing photo identification to enter this Corps of Engineers
facility. Photography will be prohibited. Anyone with questions about
the site visit should contact Mr. Clifford Phillips of Fairlawn
Hydroelectric Company, LLC at<PHONE_NUMBER> on or before June 13,
2008.

Scoping Meeting Objectives

    At the scoping meetings, staff will: (1) Present a proposed list of
issues to be addressed in the EA; (2) review and discuss existing
conditions and resource agency management objectives; (3) review and
discuss existing information and identify preliminary information and
study needs; (4) review and discuss the process plan and schedule for
pre-filing activity that incorporates the time frames provided for in
Part 5 of the Commission's regulations and, to the extent possible,
maximizes coordination of federal, state, and tribal permitting and
certification processes; and (5) discuss requests by any federal or
state agency or Indian tribe acting as a cooperating agency for
development of an environmental document.
    Meeting participants should come prepared to discuss their issues
and/or concerns. Please review the PAD in preparation for the scoping
meetings. Directions on how to obtain a copy of the PAD and the scoping
document are included in item n of this document.

Meeting Procedures

    The meetings will be recorded by a stenographer and will become
part of the formal record of the Commission proceeding on the project.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-11696 Filed 5-23-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P