[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 202 (Thursday, October 20, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 63744-63751]
[FR Doc No: 2022-22864]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2022-0704; FRL-10224-01-R9]

Partial Approval, Conditional Approval, and Partial Disapproval
of Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Nevada; Infrastructure
Requirements for Fine Particulate Matter

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve in part, conditionally approve in part, and disapprove in part
a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of
Nevada pursuant to the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or
``Act'') for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the
2012 national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for particulate
matter less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter (PM2.5). As
part of this action, we are proposing to reclassify certain regions of
the State for emergency episode planning purposes with respect to
PM2.5. We are also proposing to approve an exemption from
emergency episode planning requirements for PM2.5 for the
Nevada Division of Environmental Protection (NDEP) and Washoe County.
Finally, we are proposing to approve two new definitions and four
regulatory revisions into the Nevada SIP. We are taking comments on
this proposal and, after considering any comments submitted, plan to
take final action.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before November 21,
2022.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2022-0704 at https://www.regulations.gov. For comments submitted at
Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI)

or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or
multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective
comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. If you need assistance in a language other than English or if
you are a person with disabilities who needs a reasonable accommodation
at no cost to you, please contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Kelly, Air Planning Office (AIR-
2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, the terms ``we,''
``us,'' and ``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The EPA's Approach to the Review of Infrastructure SIP
Submissions
II. Background
    A. Statutory Framework
    B. Regulatory History
III. State Submittal
    A. Infrastructure SIP Submittal
    B. New and Revised Rules
    C. Commitment Letters
IV. The EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action
    A. Proposed Approvals and Partial Approvals
    B. Exemptions; Conditional Approvals
    C. Proposed Partial Disapprovals
    D. Deferred Action
    E. Request for Public Comments
V. Incorporation by Reference
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The EPA's Approach to the Review of Infrastructure SIP Submissions

    The EPA is proposing action on a SIP submittal from Nevada that
addresses the infrastructure requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2) for the primary and secondary 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
The requirement for states to submit a SIP revision of this type arises
out of CAA section 110(a)(1). Pursuant to section 110(a)(1), states
must make SIP submittals ``within 3 years (or such shorter period as
the Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a national
primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision thereof),'' and
these SIP submittals are to provide for the ``implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement'' of such NAAQS. The statute directly
imposes on states the duty to make these SIP submittals, and the
requirement to make the submittals is not conditioned upon the EPA's
taking any action other than promulgating a new or revised NAAQS.
Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific elements that ``[e]ach
such plan'' submittal must address.
    The EPA has historically referred to these SIP submittals made for
the purpose of satisfying the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1)
and 110(a)(2) as ``infrastructure SIP'' submittals. Although the term
``infrastructure SIP'' does not appear in the CAA, the EPA uses the
term to distinguish this particular type of SIP submittal from
submittals that are intended to satisfy other SIP requirements under
the CAA, such as ``nonattainment SIP'' or ``attainment SIP'' submittals
to address the nonattainment planning requirements of part D of title I
of the CAA, ``regional haze SIP'' submittals required to address the
visibility protection requirements of CAA section 169A, and
nonattainment new source review (NSR) permit program submittals to
address the permit requirements of CAA, title I, part D.
    Historically, the EPA has elected to use guidance documents to make
recommendations to states for infrastructure SIPs, in some cases
conveying needed interpretations on newly arising issues and in other
cases conveying interpretations that have already been developed and
applied to individual SIP submittals for particular elements.\1\ The
EPA most recently issued guidance for infrastructure SIPs on September
13, 2013 (``2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance'').\2\ The EPA developed
this document to provide states with up-to-date guidance for
infrastructure SIPs for any new or revised NAAQS. Within this guidance,
the EPA describes the duty of states to make infrastructure SIP
submittals to meet basic structural SIP requirements within three years
of promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. The EPA also made
recommendations about many specific subsections of section 110(a)(2)
that are relevant in the context of infrastructure SIP submittals.\3\
The guidance also discusses the substantively important issues that are
germane to certain subsections of section 110(a)(2). Significantly, the
EPA interprets sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) such that
infrastructure SIP submittals need to address certain issues and need
not address others. Accordingly, the EPA reviews each infrastructure
SIP submittal for compliance with the applicable statutory provisions
of section 110(a)(2), as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ We note, however, that nothing in the CAA requires the EPA
to provide guidance or to promulgate regulations for infrastructure
SIP submittals. The CAA directly applies to states and requires the
submittal of infrastructure SIP submittals, regardless of whether or
not the EPA provides guidance or regulations pertaining to such
submittals. The EPA elects to issue such guidance in order to assist
states, as appropriate.
    \2\ ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),''
Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13, 2013.
    \3\ The EPA's September 13, 2013, guidance did not make
recommendations with respect to infrastructure SIP submittals to
address section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). The EPA issued the guidance
shortly after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the D.C.
Circuit decision in EME Homer City, 696 F.3d7 (D.C. Cir. 2012) which
had interpreted the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In
light of the uncertainty created by ongoing litigation, the EPA
elected not to provide additional guidance on the requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) at that time. As the guidance is neither
binding nor required by statute, whether the EPA elects to provide
guidance on a particular section has no impact on a state's CAA
obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As an example, section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) is a required element of
section 110(a)(2) for infrastructure SIP submittals. Under this
element, a state must meet the substantive requirements of section 128,
which pertain to state boards that approve permits or enforcement
orders and heads of executive agencies with similar powers. Thus, the
EPA reviews infrastructure SIP submittals to ensure that the state's
SIP appropriately addresses the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and section 128. The 2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance
explains the EPA's interpretation that there may be a variety of ways
by which states can appropriately address these substantive statutory
requirements, depending on the structure of an individual state's
permitting or enforcement program (e.g., whether permits and
enforcement orders are approved by a multi-member board or by a head of
an executive agency). However they are addressed by the state, the
substantive requirements of section 128 are necessarily included in the
EPA's evaluation of infrastructure SIP submittals because section
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) explicitly requires that the state satisfy the
provisions of section 128.
    As another example, the EPA's review of infrastructure SIP
submittals with respect to the prevention of significant

deterioration (PSD) program requirements in sections 110(a)(2)(C),
(D)(i)(II), and (J) focuses upon the structural PSD program
requirements contained in part C, title I of the Act and the EPA's PSD
regulations. Structural PSD program requirements include provisions
necessary for the PSD program to address all regulated sources and
regulated NSR pollutants, including greenhouse gases. By contrast,
structural PSD program requirements do not include provisions that are
not required under EPA's regulations at 40 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) 51.166 but are merely available as an option for the state, such
as the option to provide grandfathering of complete permit applications
with respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. Accordingly, the
latter optional provisions are types of provisions the EPA considers
irrelevant in the context of an infrastructure SIP action.
    For other section 110(a)(2) elements, however, the EPA's review of
a state's infrastructure SIP submittal focuses on assuring that the
state's SIP meets basic structural requirements. For example, section
110(a)(2)(C) includes, inter alia, the requirement that states have a
program to regulate minor new sources. Thus, the EPA evaluates whether
the state has a SIP-approved minor NSR program and whether the program
addresses the pollutants relevant to that NAAQS. In the context of
acting on an infrastructure SIP submittal, however, the EPA does not
think it is necessary to conduct a review of each and every provision
of a state's existing minor source program (i.e., already in the
existing SIP) for compliance with the requirements of the CAA and the
EPA's regulations that pertain to such programs.
    With respect to certain other issues, the EPA does not believe that
an action on a state's infrastructure SIP submittal is necessarily the
appropriate type of action in which to address possible deficiencies in
a state's existing SIP. These issues include existing provisions
related to ``director's variance'' or ``director's discretion'' that
may be contrary to the CAA because they purport to allow revisions to
SIP-approved emissions limits while limiting public process or not
requiring further approval by the EPA and existing provisions for PSD
programs that may be inconsistent with current requirements of the
EPA's ``Final NSR Improvement Rule.'' \4\ Thus, the EPA believes it may
approve an infrastructure SIP submittal without scrutinizing the
totality of the existing SIP for such potentially deficient provisions
and may approve the submittal even if it is aware of such existing
provisions.\5\ It is important to note that the EPA's approval of a
state's infrastructure SIP submittal should not be construed as
explicit or implicit re-approval of any existing potentially deficient
provisions that relate to the three specific issues just described.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 67 FR 80186, December 31, 2002, as amended by 72 FR 32526,
June 13, 2007.
    \5\ By contrast, the EPA notes that if a state were to include a
new provision in an infrastructure SIP submittal that contained a
legal deficiency, such as a new exemption for excess emissions
during SSM events, then the EPA would need to evaluate that
provision for compliance against the rubric of applicable CAA
requirements in the context of the action on the infrastructure SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA's approach to the review of infrastructure SIP submittals
is to identify the CAA requirements that are logically applicable to
that submittal. The EPA believes that this approach to the review of a
particular infrastructure SIP submittal is appropriate, because it
would not be reasonable to read the general requirements of section
110(a)(1) and the list of elements in 110(a)(2) as requiring review of
each and every provision of a state's existing SIP against all
requirements in the CAA and the EPA regulations merely for purposes of
assuring that the state in question has the basic structural elements
for a functioning SIP for a new or revised NAAQS. Because SIPs have
grown by accretion over the decades as statutory and regulatory
requirements under the CAA have evolved, they may include some outmoded
provisions and historical artifacts. These provisions, while not fully
up to date, nevertheless may not pose a significant problem for the
purposes of ``implementation, maintenance, and enforcement'' of a new
or revised NAAQS when the EPA evaluates adequacy of the infrastructure
SIP submittal. The EPA believes that a better approach is for states
and the EPA to focus attention on those elements of section 110(a)(2)
of the CAA most likely to warrant a specific SIP revision due to the
promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS or other factors.
    For example, the EPA's 2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance gives
simpler recommendations with respect to carbon monoxide than other
NAAQS pollutants to meet the visibility requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), because carbon monoxide does not affect
visibility. As a result, an infrastructure SIP submittal for any future
new or revised NAAQS for carbon monoxide need only state this fact in
order to address the visibility prong of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
    Finally, the EPA believes that its approach with respect to
infrastructure SIP requirements is based on a reasonable reading of
sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) because the CAA provides other avenues
and mechanisms to address specific substantive deficiencies in existing
SIPs. These other statutory tools allow the EPA to take appropriately
tailored action, depending upon the nature and severity of the alleged
SIP deficiency. Section 110(k)(5) authorizes the EPA to issue a ``SIP
call'' whenever the Agency determines that a state's SIP is
substantially inadequate to attain or maintain the NAAQS, to mitigate
interstate transport, or to otherwise comply with the CAA.\6\ Section
110(k)(6) authorizes the EPA to correct errors in past actions, such as
past approvals of SIP submittals.\7\ Significantly, the EPA's
determination that an action on a state's infrastructure SIP submittal
is not the appropriate time and place to address all potential existing
SIP deficiencies does not preclude the EPA's subsequent reliance on
provisions in section 110(a)(2) as part of the basis for action to
correct those deficiencies at a later time. For example, although it
may not be appropriate to require a state to eliminate all existing
inappropriate director's discretion provisions in the course of acting
on an infrastructure SIP submittal, the EPA believes that section
110(a)(2)(A) may be among the statutory bases that the EPA relies upon
in the course of addressing such deficiency in a subsequent action.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ For example, the EPA issued a SIP call to Utah to address
specific existing SIP deficiencies related to the treatment of
excess emissions during SSM events. See ``Finding of Substantial
Inadequacy of Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State
Implementation Plan Revisions,'' 76 FR 21639, April 18, 2011.
    \7\ The EPA has used this authority to correct errors in past
actions on SIP submittals related to PSD programs. See ``Limitation
of Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions
Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State Implementation
Plans; Final Rule,'' 75 FR 82536, December 30, 2010. The EPA has
previously used its authority under CAA section 110(k)(6) to remove
numerous other SIP provisions that the Agency determined it had
approved in error. See, e.g., 61 FR 38664, July 25, 1996 and 62 FR
34641, June 27, 1997 (corrections to American Samoa, Arizona,
California, Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69 FR 67062, November 16, 2004
(corrections to California SIP); and 74 FR 57051, November 3, 2009
(corrections to Arizona and Nevada SIPs).
    \8\ See, e.g., the EPA's disapproval of a SIP submittal from
Colorado on the grounds that it would have included a director's
discretion provision inconsistent with CAA requirements, including
section 110(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., 75 FR 42342 at 42344, July 21, 2010
(proposed disapproval of director's discretion provisions); 76 FR
4540, January 26, 2011 (final disapproval of such provisions).

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

II. Background

A. Statutory Framework

    Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific elements that
``[e]ach such plan'' submission must include. The infrastructure SIP
elements required by section 110(a)(2) are as follows:
     Section 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control
measures.
     Section 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality monitoring/data
system.
     Section 110(a)(2)(C): Program for enforcement of control
measures and regulation of new and modified stationary sources.
     Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i): Interstate pollution transport.
     Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii): Interstate pollution abatement
and international air pollution.
     Section 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources and authority,
conflict of interest, and oversight of local government and regional
agencies.
     Section 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source monitoring and
reporting.
     Section 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency episodes.
     Section 110(a)(2)(H): SIP revisions.
     Section 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with government
officials, public notification, PSD, and visibility protection.
     Section 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling and submittal
of modeling data.
     Section 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees.
     Section 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation and participation by
affected local entities.
    Two elements identified in section 110(a)(2) are not governed by
the three-year submittal deadline of section 110(a)(1) and are
therefore not addressed in this action. These two elements are: Section
110(a)(2)(C) to the extent it refers to permit programs required under
part D (nonattainment NSR), and Section 110(a)(2)(I), pertaining to the
nonattainment planning requirements of part D. As a result, this action
does not address requirements for the nonattainment NSR portion of
section 110(a)(2)(C) or the whole of section 110(a)(2)(I).

B. Regulatory History

    On January 15, 2013, the EPA promulgated a revised primary NAAQS
for PM2.5, (``the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS''), triggering
a requirement for states to submit infrastructure SIPs by December 15,
2015. The revised standard lowered the annual PM2.5 NAAQS to
12.0 micrograms per cubic meter ([micro]g/m\3\) to provide increased
protection against health effects associated with long- and short-term
exposures (including premature mortality, increased hospital admissions
and emergency department visits, and development of chronic respiratory
disease).\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 78 FR 3086 (January 15, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. State Submittal

A. Infrastructure SIP Submittal

    The NDEP made a submittal addressing the infrastructure SIP
requirements for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS on December 11, 2015
(``Nevada's Infrastructure SIP Submittal'').\10\ It included separate
sections for Clark County \11\ and Washoe County.\12\ We refer to each
individual section as that agency's or County's portion of the
submittal. In accordance with CAA section 110(k)(1)(B), the
infrastructure SIP became complete by operation of law on June 11,
2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Letter and enclosures from David Emme, Administrator, NDEP,
to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX, RE: The
Nevada State Implementation Plan for the 2012 Annual Primary Fine
Particulate Matter NAAQS, dated December 11, 2015, with enclosures
including the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection Portion of
the Nevada State Implementation Plan for the 2012 Annual Primary
Fine Particulate Matter NAAQS, dated December 11, 2015.
    \11\ Letter from Lewis Wallenmeyer, Director, Clark County
Department of Air Quality, to David Emme, Administrator, NDEP,
Subject: the Clark County Portion of the PM2.5 State
Implementation Plan, dated August 20, 2015, including the enclosed
Clark County Portion of the State Implementation Plan to Meet the
PM2.5 SIP Requirements of the Clean Air Act Section
110(a)(2), dated August 2015.
    \12\ Letter from Charlene Albee, Director, Washoe County Health
District, to Dave Emme, Administrator, Nevada Division of
Environmental Protection, Subject: PM2.5 State
Implementation Plan for the 2012 Annual NAAQS, dated December 4,
2015, with enclosures, including: the Washoe County Portion of the
Nevada State Implementation Plan to Meet the PM2.5
Infrastructure SIP Requirements of Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2),
dated October 22, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted in each respective portion of the submittal, the NDEP,
Clark County, and Washoe County all provided public notice and an
opportunity for public comment prior to finalizing each portion of the
infrastructure SIP submittal. Additionally, each agency either held or
offered to hold a public hearing as part of the public notice and
comment period. Notice, hearing, and adoption dates for each portion of
the submittal are shown in Table 1. We find that these submittals meet
the procedural requirements for public participation under CAA section
110(a)(2) and 40 CFR 51.102.

                                      Table 1--Notification and Opportunities for Public Comment on the Nevada SIP
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Agency                          Submittal                 Start of public notice            Hearing date                Adoption date
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NDEP...........................  Nevada Division of Environmental   October 19, 2015...........  None a.....................  December 11, 2015.
                                  Protection Portion of the Nevada
                                  State Implementation Plan for
                                  the 2012 Annual Primary Fine
                                  Particulate Matter NAAQS.
Clark County Board of            Clark County Portion of the State  June 20, 2015..............  August 18, 2015............  August 18, 2015.
 Commissioners.                   Implementation Plan to Meet the
                                  PM2.5 SIP Requirements of the
                                  Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2).
Washoe County District Board of  The Washoe County Portion of the   September 21, 2015.........  October 22, 2015...........  October 22, 2015.
 Health.                          Nevada State Implementation Plan
                                  to Meet the PM2.5 Infrastructure
                                  SIP Requirements of Clean Air
                                  Act Section 110(a)(2).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a The hearing was tentatively scheduled for November 19, 2015, but cancelled because no one requested a hearing.

B. New and Revised Rules

    In its December 11, 2015 letter transmitting the Nevada
Infrastructure SIP Submittal, the NDEP included several new and revised
rules for incorporation into the Nevada SIP.\13\ Along with the new and
revised rules, the NDEP included documentation of the public comment
period, which began on September 14, 2015; the public hearing, on
October 14, 2015; and proof of adoption by the State Environmental
Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See Enclosure NDEP 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS
Infrastructure SIP, December 11, 2015, Nevada Division of
Environmental Protection Regulatory Amendments for Approval into the
Applicable Nevada SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. What rules did the State submit
    Table 2 provides a list of the new and revised rules, which are
included in the docket for this rulemaking.

                  Table 2--New and Revised Rules Submitted by Nevada for Adoption Into the SIP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Nevada
                                Administrative    New/previous
            Agency             Code (NAC) rule      EPA rule      Adoption date  Submittal date     Rule title
                                     No.            approval
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nevada Environmental           445B.1349......  New............      10/27/2015      12/11/2015  Definition of
 Commission.                                                                                ``PM2.5
                                                                                emissions''.
                               445B.1355......  New............      10/27/2015      12/11/2015  Definition of
                                                                                ``PM10
                                                                                emissions''.
                               Revision to....  May 8, 2007 (72      10/27/2015      12/11/2015  Emissions of
                               445B.2203......   FR 25971).                                       particulate
                                                                                matter: Fuel-
                                                                                burning
                                                                                equipment.
                               Revision to      March 27, 2006       10/27/2015      12/11/2015  Incinerator
                                445B.2207.       (71 FR 15040).                                   burning.
                               Revision to      August 23, 2012      10/27/2015      12/11/2015  Control
                                445B.22096.      (77 FR 50936).                                   measures
                                                                                constituting
                                                                                BART;
                                                                                limitations on
                                                                                emissions.
                               Revision to      October 21,          10/27/2015      12/11/2015  Standards of
                                445B.22097.      2014 (79 FR                                      quality for
                                                 62851).                                          ambient air
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revisions
    The regulations were proposed ``to further align [Nevada's
regulations] with the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS)
currently in effect,'' and include ``new definitions for
PM2.5 emissions and PM10 emissions to clarify
that direct gaseous emissions from a source that condense to form
particulate matter . . . are included in those terms, as required by
federal regulation.'' \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, which
includes the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection, State
Environmental Commission, Notice of Regulatory Hearing Adoption of
Regulations and Other Matters Before the State Environmental
Commission Public Notice, SEC Public Hearing October 14, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The new regulations support or address infrastructure SIP
requirements for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS by strengthening the
control of PM2.5 emissions. Rules in the Nevada
Administrative Code (NAC) 445B.1349 and 445.1355 would, for the first
time, define PM2.5 emissions and PM10 emissions
to include vapor emissions that can condense to form
PM10.\15\ The EPA clarified that condensable
PM2.5 must be covered in PSD and nonattainment new source
review permitting in a memorandum dated April 14, 2014.\16\ The EPA's
2013 Infrastructure SIP Guidance explained that the EPA will evaluate
structural elements of a state's PSD program, which includes provisions
to regulate all NSR pollutants, including condensable PM and its
precursor emissions.\17\ The revisions to NAC 445B.2203, NAC 445B.2207
and NAC 445B.22096 change language related to PM10 emissions
to be consistent with NAC 445B.1355, which strengthens the controls for
specific sources by controlling condensable PM10 emissions.
The change to NAC 445B.22097 would lower the State's annual average
standard for PM2.5 to 12.0 [micro]g/m\3\, consistent with
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. It would also remove the State annual
average standard for PM10, which the EPA revoked in a final
rule published on October 17, 2006 (71 FR 61144) but leaves the State
24-hour PM10 NAAQS in place, consistent with the EPA's 24-
hour PM10 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ This rulemaking does not alter the definition of
PM10 at NAC 445B.135, adopted into the SIP in a final
rule on March 26, 2006 (FR 71 FR 15040).
    \16\ Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, to EPA Regional Air Division Directors,
Regions 1-10, dated April 8, 2014, regarding: Interim Guidance on
the Treatment of Condensable Particulate Matter Test Results in the
Permitting Programs.
    \17\ ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan
(SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2),'' Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13, 2013,
pp. 25-29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Commitment Letters

    In addition to the submittals identified in Table 1, NDEP and
Washoe County submitted letters committing to develop, adopt, and
submit rules meeting the public notice requirements of CAA section 127,
which are cross-referenced in CAA section 110(a)(2)(J), within one year
of our final action conditionally approving both agencies for the
requirement.\18\ CAA section 127 requires that each state's EPA-
approved SIP contain measures to notify the public of instances where
any NAAQS is exceeded, advise the public of health hazards related to
any exceedance, and provide information on ways to prevent such
standards from being exceeded in the future. While NDEP and Washoe
County provide notifications to the public in the event of a NAAQS
exceedance, neither agency's EPA-approved SIP contains measures
requiring such notifications. CAA section 110(k)(4) authorizes the EPA
to conditionally approve a plan revision based on a commitment by the
state to adopt specific enforceable measures by a date certain but not
later than one year after the date of the plan approval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Letter from Greg Lovato, Administrator Nevada Division of
Environmental Protection, to Martha Guzman, Regional Administrator,
U.S. EPA Region IX, Re: Request for Conditional Approval of Nevada's
Infrastructure State Implementation Plan for the 2012
PM2.5 and 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standards, dated September 9, 2022 and Letter from Greg Lovato,
Administrator Nevada Division of Environmental Protection to Martha
Guzman, Regional Admin, Re: Nevada's Infrastructure State
Implementation Plan for the 2012 PM2.5 National Ambient
Air Quality Standard dated September 9, 2022 that enclosed the
letter from Francisco Vega, Director, Air Quality Management
Division, Washoe County Health Division to Greg Lovato,
Administrator, Nevada Division of Environmental Protection and
Martha Guzman, EPA, Re: Request for Conditional Approval of Nevada's
Infrastructure State Implementation Plan for the 2012
PM2.5 and 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standards, dated September 2, 2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. The EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action

A. Proposed Approvals and Partial Approvals

1. Infrastructure SIP
    We have evaluated Nevada's Infrastructure SIP Submittal and the
existing provisions of the Nevada SIP for compliance with the
infrastructure SIP requirements (or ``elements'') of CAA section
110(a)(2) and applicable regulations in 40 CFR part 51 (``Requirements
for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of State Implementation
Plans''). The Technical Support Document (TSD), which is available in
the docket to this proposed rulemaking, includes our evaluation of all
of the elements and rationale for our proposed action, as well as our
evaluation of various statutory and regulatory provisions. For some
requirements, we refer to prior actions and TSDs for Nevada
Infrastructure SIPs, which are also included in the docket for this
rulemaking.
    Based on the analysis in this proposed rulemaking and discussed in
detail in our TSD, we propose to approve Nevada's Infrastructure SIP
with respect to the following Clean Air Act requirements:\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ All approvals are full approvals for NDEP, Clark County,
and Washoe County except where noted otherwise.

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

     110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control measures.
     110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality monitoring/data system.
     110(a)(2)(C)(in part): Program for enforcement of control
measures (full approval), and regulation of new stationary sources
(approval for Clark County only) and minor sources (full approval).
     110(a)(2)(D)(in part): Interstate Pollution Transport.
    [cir] 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)--significant contribution to a
nonattainment area (prong 1).
    [cir] 110(a)(2)(D)(i)((I)--interference with a maintenance area
(prong 2).
    [cir] 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (in part)--interference with PSD (prong
3) (approval for Clark County only) and visibility transport (prong 4)
(deferred).
    [cir] 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) (in part)--interstate pollution abatement
(approval for Clark County only) and international air pollution.
     110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources and authority, conflict
of interest, and oversight of local governments and regional agencies.
     110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source monitoring and reporting.
     110(a)(2)(G): Emergency episodes.
     110(a)(2)(H): SIP revisions.
     110(a)(2)(J) (in part): Consultation with government
officials, public notification (conditional approval for NDEP and
Washoe County, approval for Clark County), and PSD and visibility
protection (approval for Clark County only).
     110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling and submission of
modeling data.
     110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees.
     110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/participation by affected local
entities.
2. Proposed Approval of State Provisions Into the Nevada SIP
    As part of our proposed approval of Nevada's infrastructure SIP
submittal, we are also proposing to approve several State regulations
into the Nevada SIP. Specifically, we propose to approve into the SIP
six provisions from the Nevada Administrative Code. Two new provisions,
NAC 445B.1349 and NAC 445B.1355, define ``PM2.5 emissions''
and ``PM10 emissions'' to include vapors that can condense
to form PM2.5 and PM10. Three provisions are
revisions to NAC 445B.2203, NAC 445B.2207, and NAC 445B.22096 and
replace the term ``emissions of PM10'' with
``PM10 emissions,'' Finally, NAC 445B.22097 revises the
State annual PM2.5 emissions standard from 15.0 [micro]g/
m\3\ to 12.0 [micro]g/m\3\ to be consistent with the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS.
    The current revision to NAC 445B.22096 aligns a reference to
PM10 emissions with the new definition for PM10
emissions in NAC 445B.1355, which strengthens the SIP by regulating
condensable PM10 emissions. However, the EPA had previously
disapproved a portion of NAC 445B.22096 in 2012 addressing the
NOX averaging time and control type for units 1, 2, and 3
and the NOX emission limit for unit 3 at the Reid Gardner
Generating Station (RGGS).\20\ In addition to disapproving a portion of
NAC 445B.22096 in 2012, the EPA promulgated a Federal Implementation
Plan (FIP) to replace the disapproved portions of the rule.\21\ Since
that time, RGGS has closed and the EPA has rescinded its FIP.\22\
Because of the facility's closure and decommission, the provisions
covering emissions from RGGS are no longer applicable. Therefore,
although the current revision to NAC 445B.22096 includes provisions for
RGGS that the EPA previously disapproved, because RGGS has now closed,
approving this rule into the SIP does not change the status of RGGS and
otherwise strengthens the SIP by regulating condensable PM10
emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 77 FR 50936 (August 23, 2012).
    \21\ Id.
    \22\ The recission of the Nevada Regional Haze FIP was finalized
in a rule published on October 26, 2018 (83 FR 54053).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a general matter, rules in the SIP must be enforceable (see CAA
section 110(a)(2)), must not interfere with applicable requirements
concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or other CAA
requirements (see CAA section 110(l)), and must not modify certain SIP
control requirements in nonattainment areas without ensuring equivalent
or greater emissions reductions (see CAA section 193). We have
evaluated the NDEP's new and revised rules for compliance with CAA
requirements for SIPs, set forth in CAA section 110(a)(2), and for
compliance with CAA requirements for SIP revisions in CAA sections
110(l) and 193. In general, the rules either strengthen the SIP or
clarify certain terms in the SIP, as discussed in section III.B.2. of
this proposed rulemaking and in our TSD. Based upon our analysis, we
propose to find the NDEP rules meet the requirements of CAA sections
110(a)(2), 110(l), and 193. Therefore, the EPA is proposing to approve
the submitted new and revised rules into the Nevada SIP.

B. Exemptions; Conditional Approvals

1. Exemptions
    For emergency episode planning, the priority thresholds for
classification of Air Quality Control Regions (AQCR) of a state are
listed in 40 CFR 51.150. AQCRs classified Priority I, IA, or II are
required to have SIP-approved emergency episode contingency plans,
while those classified Priority III are not required to have plans.\23\
Classification of Nevada's AQCRs is located at 40 CFR 52.1471. However,
there are currently no priority classifications for PM2.5.
As explained in our TSD, we have instead relied upon 2009 guidance for
the 2006 p.m.2.5 NAAQS, which includes recommendations for
evaluating emergency episode requirements under the CAA.\24\ Under the
2009 guidance, any AQCR with 24-hour PM2.5 ambient air
concentrations above 140.4 [micro]g/m\3\ must have a SIP-approved
emergency episode contingency plan under 110(a)(2)(G). The only AQCR in
Nevada with ambient air concentrations above this level is the
Northwest Nevada Intrastate AQCR, which had a maximum PM2.5
24-hour concentration of 241.6 [micro]g/m\3\ in 2021.\25\ Washoe County
and several counties within the jurisdiction of NDEP that are part of
the Northwest Nevada Intrastate AQCR are therefore required to have
SIP-approved contingency plans. While the NDEP and Washoe County have
SIP-approved emergency episode contingency plans, only the Washoe
County plan addresses PM2.5, whereas the NDEP plan does not.
However, under 40 CFR 51.152(d)(1), the EPA may exempt from the
emergency episode contingency plan requirements any AQCR that is in
attainment for the relevant NAAQS. Because the Northwest Nevada
Intrastate AQCR is in attainment for the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS,\26\ we are proposing to exempt the Northwest Nevada Intrastate
AQCR from the contingency plan requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(G).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ 40 CFR 51.151 and 51.152.
    \24\ Memorandum from: William T. Harnett, Policy Division
Director, EPA, to: Regional Air Division Directors, Regions I-X,
Subject: Guidance on SIP Elements Required Under Sections 110(a)(1)
and (2) for the 2006 24-Hour Fine Particle (PM2.5)
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), dated September 25,
2009.
    \25\ The monitoring data are available in the docket for this
proposal.
    \26\ 80 FR 2206 (January 15, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Conditional Approvals
    CAA section 110(k)(4) authorizes the EPA to conditionally approve a
plan revision based on a commitment by the state to adopt specific
enforceable measures by a date certain but not later than one year
after the date of the plan approval. In letters dated September 2, 2022
and September 9, 2022, the NDEP and Washoe County committed to adopt
and submit specific enforceable measures to address the identified

deficiencies under CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) discussed in Sections
III.C. and IV.A. of this proposed rulemaking and in our TSD.\27\
Accordingly, pursuant to section 110(k)(4) of the Act, the EPA is
proposing a conditional approval of the portions of the NDEP and Washoe
County Infrastructure SIP Submittals addressing the public notification
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) for the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ Clark County has satisfied this requirement through Air
Quality Regulation 4.5, approved into the SIP in a rule published on
April 21, 2022 (87 FR 23765).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the NDEP and Washoe County meet their commitments to submit the
required revisions within 12 months of the EPA's final action on this
SIP submittal, and the EPA approves the submission, then the
deficiencies listed above will be cured. However, if the NDEP or Washoe
County fails to submit these revisions within the required timeframe,
the conditional approvals shall become disapprovals.

C. Proposed Partial Disapprovals

    The EPA proposes to disapprove Nevada's Infrastructure SIP
Submittals with respect to the following infrastructure SIP
requirements:
     110(a)(2)(C) (in part): Regulation of new and modified
stationary sources (disapproval for the NDEP and Washoe County).
     110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (in part): interference with PSD
(prong 3) (disapproval for the NDEP and Washoe County).
     110(a)(2)(D)(ii) (in part): interstate pollution abatement
(disapproval for the NDEP and Washoe County).
     110(a)(2)(J) (in part): PSD (disapproval for the NDEP and
Washoe County).
    As explained more fully in our TSD, we are proposing to disapprove
the NDEP and Washoe County portions of Nevada's Infrastructure
Submittals with respect to the PSD-related requirements of sections
110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), and 110(a)(2)(J).
The Nevada SIP does not fully satisfy the statutory and regulatory
requirements for PSD permit programs under part C, title I of the Act,
because the NDEP and Washoe County do not currently have SIP-approved
PSD programs. Although the NDEP and Washoe County portions of the SIP
remain deficient with respect to PSD requirements, there would be no
consequences of this proposed disapproval, as both agencies implement
the Federal PSD program at 40 CFR 52.21 for all regulated NSR
pollutants, pursuant to delegation agreements with the EPA.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ See 40 CFR 52.1485. The EPA fully delegated the
implementation of the Federal PSD programs to NDEP on October 19,
2004 (``Agreement for Delegation of the Federal Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) Program by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9 to the Nevada Division of
Environmental Protection''), as updated on September 15, 2011 and
November 7, 2012, and to Washoe County on March 13, 2008
(``Agreement for Delegation of the Federal Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) Program by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 9 to the Washoe County District Health
Department'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Deferred Action

    On August 12, 2022, NDEP withdrew its submittal of the Prong 4
element in the 2015 Nevada Infrastructure SIP Submittal and submitted a
revised Prong 4 element with the State's Regional Haze Plan for the 2nd
Planning Period.\29\ The EPA intends to act on the revised Prong 4
element when we act on Nevada's Regional Haze Plan for the 2nd Planning
Period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See letter dated August 12, 2022, from Greg Lovato,
Administrator, Nevada Department of Environmental Protection, to
Martha Guzman, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, re: The Nevada
State Implementation Plan for the Regional Haze Rule for the Second
Planning Period; Withdrawal and Replacement of Elements of the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS and 2015 Ozone NAAQS Infrastructure SIPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Request for Public Comments

    The EPA is soliciting public comments on this proposed rulemaking.
We will accept comments from the public for the next 30 days. We will
consider any comments received before taking final action.

V. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference the NDEP rules listed in Table 2 and discussed in section
III.B.2. of this preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make,
these documents generally available electronically in the docket for
this rulemaking at https://www.regulations.gov.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve state law
as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this
proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act.
    The State did not evaluate environmental justice considerations as
part of its SIP submittal. There is no information in the record
inconsistent with the stated goals of Executive Order 12898 of
achieving environmental justice for people of color, low-income
populations, and indigenous peoples.
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Approval and promulgation of implementation plans, Air pollution
control, Environmental protection, Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Particulate

matter, PM2.5, PM10, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Dated: October 15, 2022.
Martha Guzman Aceves,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2022-22864 Filed 10-19-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 162 (Wednesday, August 23, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57352-57354]
[FR Doc No: 2023-18168]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2023-0700]
RIN 1625-AA87

Security Zone; Lake Tahoe, Glenbrook, NV

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary security zone in
the navigable waters of Lake Tahoe, Glenbrook, NV within the San
Francisco Captain of the Port Zone. This moving security zone will
encompass all navigable waters within 100 yards of the vessel carrying
high-ranking government officials and their official party. The
security zone is necessary to protect the harbors, ports, and
waterfront facilities of Lake Tahoe during a visit by high-ranking
government officials and their official party. Entry of vessels or
persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by
the Captain of the Port San Francisco or a designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective without actual notice from August 23,
2023 through August 27, 2023. For the purposes of enforcement, actual
notice will be used from August 18, 2023, until August 23, 2023.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2023-0700 in the search box and click ``Search.'' Next, in the Document
Type column, select ``Supporting & Related Material.''

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this rule,
call or email LT William Harris, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Francisco,
Waterways Management Division; 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 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 it is impracticable and contrary to
the public interest. The Coast Guard was notified of the need of this
security zone with less than two weeks' notice and did not receive
final details until August 16, 2023. The high-ranking government
official visit will occur before the completion of any comment period,
thereby jeopardizing the security of the official and the harbors,
ports, and waterfront facilities of Lake Tahoe. Additionally, it is
impracticable to publish an NPRM because the visit is scheduled to
occur on August 18-27, 2023, and we must establish this security zone
by those dates. We lack sufficient time to solicit public comments and
review the prior to issuing a final action.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Delaying the effective date would
be impracticable because immediate action is needed to provide for the
protection of high-ranking government officials, security of the
harbors, ports, and waterfront facilities, and mitigation of potential
subversive acts.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C.
70051 and 70124. The Captain of the Port (COTP) has determined that the
high-ranking government officials and their official party plan to
visit various locations throughout the Lake Tahoe area and will transit
the lake by boat, necessitating a moving security zone. The navigable
waters of Lake Tahoe are in the San Francisco COTP zone. This rule is
needed to ensure the safety of high-ranking government officials and
their official party.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    This rule establishes a moving security zone from August 18 through
27, 2023. The moving security zone will cover all navigable waters of
Lake Tahoe, from surface to bottom, within 100 yards of the vessel
carrying high-ranking government officials and their official party.
This zone will be in effect from 12:01 a.m. on August 18, 2023, until
11:59 p.m. on August 27, 2023, and enforced as necessary during that
period.
    The duration of this zone is intended to protect the harbors,
ports, and waterfront facilities during the high-ranking government
officials' visit to the local area and to ensure the safety of the
official party. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the
security zone except for authorized support vessels, aircraft, and
support personnel, or other vessels authorized by the COTP or a
designated representative.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this 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 rule has not been designated a ``significant
regulatory action,'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as
amended by Executive Order 14094 (Modernizing Regulatory Review).
Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, and duration of the security zone. The effect of this rule
will not be significant because local waterway users will be notified
by on-scene enforcement to ensure the security zone will result in
minimal impact. Additionally, vessel traffic will be able to pass
safely around the area of the security zone. The entities most likely
to be affected are pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities.
The rule will allow vessels to seek permission to enter the zone by
contacting the COTP or the COTP's designated representative through the
Command Post at telephone<PHONE_NUMBER> or by VHF Marine Radio channel
21A.

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
security zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a 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
call or email 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 Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.

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
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 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
temporary moving security zone of limited duration in effect over a
period of ten days. It is 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 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.

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.

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.T11-138 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T11-138  Security Zone: Lake Tahoe, Glenbrook, NV.

    (a) Location. The following area is a security zone: (1) All waters
within 100 yards of the vessel carrying high ranking government
officials and members of their official party when transiting Lake
Tahoe.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section, designated representative
means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain,
petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel, and a
Federal, State, or local officer designated by or assisting the Captain
of the Port (COTP) San Francisco in the enforcement of the security
zone.
    (c) Regulations. (1) Under the general security zone regulations in
subpart D of this part, you may not enter the security zone described
in paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the COTP or a
designated representative.
    (2) The security zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as
may be permitted by the COTP or a designated representative.
    (3) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's
designated representative through the Command Post at telephone (202)
604-8857 or by VHF Marine Radio channel 21A. Those in the security zone
must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the
COTP or the COTP's designated representative.
    (d) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced, when
necessary, from 12:01 a.m. on August 18, 2023, until 11:59 p.m. on
August 27, 2023.

    Dated: August 17, 2023.
Taylor Q. Lam,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Sector San Francisco.
[FR Doc. 2023-18168 Filed 8-22-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P