[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 224 (Thursday, November 19, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 73636-73640]
[FR Doc No: 2020-24065]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2020-055; FRL-10016-32-Region 5]

Air Plan Approval; Ohio; Technical Amendment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing the
removal of the air pollution nuisance rule from the Ohio State
Implementation Plan (SIP) using a Clean Air Act (CAA) error correction
provision. EPA has determined that this rule was not relied upon by
Ohio to demonstrate implementation, maintenance or enforcement of any
national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS). Upon the effective date
of this action, the nuisance rule will no longer be part of the Ohio
SIP.

DATES: This final rule is effective on December 21, 2020.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2020-0055. All documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
through www.regulations.gov or at the Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays and facility
closures due to COVID-19. We recommend that you telephone Rachel
Rineheart, Environmental Engineer, at<PHONE_NUMBER> before visiting
the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rachel Rineheart, Environmental
Engineer, Air Permits Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

I. What is the background for this action?

    The CAA was first enacted in 1970. Section 110(a)(1) required each
state to submit to EPA a SIP that provided for the implementation,
maintenance and enforcement of the NAAQS. In the 1970s and early 1980s,
thousands of state and local agency regulations were submitted to EPA
for incorporation into SIPs, ostensibly to fulfill the new Federal
requirements. In many cases, states submitted entire regulatory air
pollution programs, including many elements not required by the CAA.
Due to time and resource constraints, EPA's review of these submittals
focused primarily on the rules addressing the new substantive
requirements of the CAA, and we approved many other

elements into the SIP with minimal review. We now recognize that some
of these elements may be appropriate for state and local agencies to
adopt and implement, but should not become federally enforceable SIP
requirements; these include rules that prohibit air pollution
nuisances. Such rules generally have no connection to the purposes for
which SIPs are developed and approved, namely the implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS.
    Ohio rule AP-2-07, ``Air pollution nuisances prohibited,'' was
approved by EPA into the Ohio SIP on April 15, 1974. See 39 FR 13542.
Subsequently, Ohio amended and renumbered the rule as OAC 3745-15-07
and submitted it as a revision to the SIP. EPA approved the amended
rule on August 13, 1984. See 49 FR 32182. OAC 3745-15-07 prohibits the
``emission or escape into the open air from any source or sources
whatsoever, of smoke, ashes, dust, dirt, grime, acids, fumes, gases,
vapors, odors, or any other substances or combinations of substances,
in such manner or in such amounts as to endanger the health, safety or
welfare of the public, or cause unreasonable injury or damage to
property.''
    On March 23, 2020, EPA proposed, under the authority of section
110(k)(6) of the CAA, to remove Ohio's nuisance rule from the Ohio SIP
because it does not have a reasonable connection to the attainment and
maintenance of the NAAQS and EPA erred in approving it as part of the
Ohio SIP.

II. Response to Comments Received on the Proposed Rule

    EPA received some comments that were political in nature or that
where otherwise beyond the scope of this action (i.e., related to
climate change, water quality, or other non-NAAQS related issues), and
EPA will not be responding to these comments. Adverse comments that
were germane to the action and EPA's response to those comments are
summarized below.

A. Extension of Comment Period

    EPA's notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) was published in the
Federal Register on March 23, 2020, with a 30-day comment period ending
April 22, 2020. See 85 FR 16309. The timing of publication coincided
with the Ohio Department of Health Director's Stay at Home Order,
issued on March 22, 2020. EPA received four requests for an extension
to the public comment period citing difficulties in communicating with
and organizing interested parties, limited access to supporting
information, and lack of childcare due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the
Stay at Home Order. Three requests sought a 60-day extension and one
request sought an extension to May 13, 2020. On April 22, 2020, EPA
granted a 30-day extension to the comment period to May 22, 2020. See
85 FR 22378. No additional requests for extension were received.

B. Comments Supporting the Removal of Ohio's Nuisance Rule From the SIP

    EPA received comments in support of EPA's NPRM from the Ohio
Chamber of Commerce, the Ohio Chemistry Technology Council, The Ohio
Manufacturers' Association, API Ohio, and the Ohio Oil and Gas
Association.

C. Comments Opposing the Removal of Ohio's Nuisance Rule From the SIP

    EPA received comments opposing the removal of the Ohio nuisance
rule from the Sierra Club, the Ohio Environmental Council, Ohio Citizen
Action, Altman Newman Co. LPA, the National Resources Defense Council,
and more than 1800 individual commenters who submitted their comments
as part of a letter-writing campaign. The following discussion provides
a summary of the comments received and EPA's response to each comment.
    Comment 1: Commenters had requested a 60-day extension of the April
22, 2020, deadline for comments, while EPA granted a 30-day extension
until May 22, 2020. The commenters state: ``During the revised comment
period there has been no opportunity for neighbors and community groups
to learn about this action, to meet face-to-face to discuss its
implications, or to even seek public records because public offices
have been closed and unable to produce documents. Furthermore, the
press has been understandably focused on the immediately life-
threatening pandemic. These circumstances have had a particularly
devastating impact on the rights of poor and minority communities to
learn of EPA's proposed action and to comment on citizen concerns.''
    Response: SIPs are rulemaking actions under the Administrative
Procedure Act, which does not specify a period for public comment.
However, a 30-day period is consistent with most SIP actions proposed
by EPA and with the intent of Congress as reflected in CAA section
307(h) (42 U.S.C. 7607(h)), which governs certain Federal
administrative proceedings. It should be noted that EPA is not required
to specifically notify any particular entity of its rulemaking actions;
notification of all parties is accomplished through publications in the
Federal Register. EPA published the NPRM to remove Ohio's nuisance rule
in the Federal Register and initially provided 30 days for public
comment. As stated previously, the publication of EPA's NPRM coincided
with the Stay at Home Order in Ohio due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Based
on the generalized concerns identified by commenters, including
difficulty communicating with interested parties and issues with
childcare, EPA granted a 30-day extension of the comment period.
Although generally claiming, for example, that during the extended
comment period there has been ``no opportunity'' to ``seek public
records because public offices have been closed,'' the commenters did
not identify any public records that would have been sought or
explained how such records might have been relevant, and have made no
showing of any attempt to obtain any such records. Moreover, EPA's
original NPRM and NPRM extension did not limit the ability of any
interested party to request an additional extension based on updated or
more detailed concerns, but no additional request for extension was
received after the NPRM 30-day extension.
    Comment 2: EPA cannot lawfully eliminate Ohio Admin. Code 3745-15-
07 from Ohio's State Implementation Plan through the CAA's error
correction mechanism.
    Response: Section 110(k)(6) of the CAA provides EPA with the
authority to make corrections to actions that are subsequently found to
be in error. Alabama Environmental Council v. Administrator, 711 F.3d
1277, 1286 (11th Cir. 2013) (``110(k)(6) provides an avenue for
correcting a SIP revision approved in error''); see also Ass'n of
Irritated Residents v. EPA, 790 F.3d 934, 948 (9th Cir. 2015)
(110(k)(6) is a ``broad provision'' enacted to provide the EPA with an
avenue to correct errors). The key provisions of section 110(k)(6) for
present purposes are that the Administrator has the authority to
``determine'' when a SIP approval was ``in error,'' and when the
Administrator does so, may then revise the SIP approval ``as
appropriate,'' in the same manner as the prior action, and do so
without requiring any further submission for the state. Id. at 1288.
Moreover, CAA section 110(k)(6) ``confers discretion on the EPA to
decide if and when it will invoke the statute to revise a prior
action.'' Id.; 790 F.3d at 948 (section 110(k)(6) grants

``EPA the discretion to decide when to act pursuant to that
provision'').\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ CAA section 110(k)(6) was added to the CAA as part of the
CAA Amendments of 1990. Prior to the addition of that subsection,
there was no express provision in section 110 for EPA to correct
erroneous actions, on its own initiative and without further State
action. Indeed, prior to the addition of 110(k)(6), the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit had held that EPA
lacked the authority to modify a SIP to correct its mistakes, unless
it followed the then-existing revision procedure involving State
review and other action. Concerned Citizens of Bridesburg v. EPA,
836 F.2d 777 (1987). Although there is no statement in the
legislative history of the CAA Amendments of 1990 that Congress
specifically responded to Concerned Citizens in enacting 110(k)(6),
it is telling that the addition 110(k)(6) effectively overruled that
decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While CAA section 110(k)(6) provides EPA with the authority to
correct its own ``error,'' nowhere does this provision or any other
provision in the CAA define what qualifies as ``error.'' Thus, EPA
believes that the term should be given its plain language, everyday
meaning, which includes all unintentional, incorrect or wrong actions
or mistakes.
    EPA has used CAA section 110(k)(6) as authority to make substantive
corrections to remove a variety of provisions from SIPs that are not
related to the attainment or maintenance of NAAQS or any other CAA
requirement. See, e.g., ``Approval and Promulgation of Implantation
Plans; Kentucky: Approval of Revisions to the State Implementation
Plan,'' 75 FR 2440 (January 15, 2010) (correcting the SIP by removing a
provision, approved in 1982, used to address hazardous or toxic air
pollutants); ``Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; New
York,'' 73 FR 21546 (April 22, 2008) (issuing a direct final rule to
correct a prior SIP by removing a general duty ``nuisance provision''
that had been approved in 1984); ``Correction of Implementation Plans;
American Samoa, Arizona, California, Hawaii, and Nevada State
Implementation Plans,'' 63 FR 34641 (June 27, 1997) (correcting five
SIPs by deleting a variety of administrative provisions concerning
variances, hearing board procedures, and fees that had been approved
during the 1970s).
    Comment 3: The proposed rule lacks any basis for the assertion that
the air pollution nuisance rule in Ohio's SIP was approved in error and
thus fails to meet the plain text requirements for application of
110(k)(6).
    Response: The NPRM published on March 23, 2020, 85 FR 16309, states
that EPA is ``proposing to remove Ohio's nuisance rule from the Ohio
SIP because it does not have a reasonable connection to the attainment
and maintenance of the NAAQS,'' and that the ``prior approval of OAC
3745-15-07 into the Ohio SIP was in error.'' In addition, the NPRM
stated that the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) had
confirmed that Ohio did not rely on and did not intend to rely on the
provision for purposes of attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS.
    CAA section 110(k)(6) does not define the term ``error.'' EPA
believes that the term should be given its plain language, common
meaning, such that an error is a mistake or an incorrect, wrong, or
inaccurate action. Under section 110(k)(6) EPA must make an error
determination and provide the ``the basis thereof.'' There is no
indication that this is a substantial burden for the Agency to meet. To
the contrary, the requirement is met if EPA clearly articulates the
error and the basis thereof. Ass'n of Irritated Residents, 790 F.3d at
948; see also Alabama Environmental Council, 711 F.3d at 1287-1288 (EPA
must ``articulate an `error' and provide `the basis' '' of its error
determination, citing with approval EPA's error articulation in another
EPA action at 76 FR 25178 (May 3, 2011)).
    Here, EPA articulated its error and provided the basis thereof:
SIPs provide for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of
the NAAQS; the Ohio nuisance rule is not associated with the
implementation, maintenance, or enforcement of the NAAQS; and EPA's
previous approval in the SIP of the rule was erroneous. EPA's exclusion
from the SIP of a nuisance provision unrelated to attainment and
maintenance of the NAAQS is consistent with previous Agency practice.
EPA has removed nuisance provisions from several SIPs, including those
for the State of Michigan, 64 FR 7790, Commonwealth of Kentucky
(Jefferson County portion), 66 FR 53657, and the State of Nevada, 69 FR
54006. Additionally, EPA has issued final rules declining to approve
nuisance provisions into SIPs. (See 45 FR 73696, 46 FR 11843, 46 FR
26303 and 63 FR 51833.) \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Moreover, it is EPA's longstanding position that measures to
control non-criteria pollutants may not legally be made part of the
SIP. See February 9, 1979, memorandum ``Status of State/Local Air
Pollution Control Measures Not Related to NAAQS,'' from Michael A.
James, Associate General Counsel Air, Noise and Radiation Division.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 4: EPA's approval of the Ohio nuisance rule was purposeful
and not in error as demonstrated by the August 13, 1984, 49 FR 32182,
approval of revisions to the nuisance rule and subsequent comments from
EPA on title V permits issued in Ohio which state that the nuisance
rule is an applicable requirement under the SIP. Furthermore, inclusion
of the nuisance rule is so integral to the SIP that it has been
included in every title V permit issued and every permit issued by Ohio
since adoption.
    Response: The permit comments related to the Ohio nuisance rule are
correct in that the rule is currently in the SIP and therefore an
``applicable requirement'' under the title V operating permit program.
Confirmation of the fact that the rule is part of the SIP in the
permitting process has no bearing on the appropriateness of that rule
for inclusion in the SIP. The determination of whether a state rule is
appropriate for inclusion in the SIP is beyond the scope of the
permitting process. Inclusion of the Ohio nuisance rule in state
permits does not demonstrate that the rule is integral to the SIP which
is limited in scope by the CAA to the implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement of the NAAQS. To the contrary, as noted, the Ohio EPA
indicated that the nuisance rule was not intended to address the
attainment or maintenance of the NAAQS.
    The fact that EPA approved a revision to the Ohio nuisance rule in
1984 does not make approval any less in error; rather, it merely
indicates that EPA unfortunately repeated its error. Nor is it material
whether the error was intentional (or, per the commenters,
``purposeful'') or inadvertent. It was erroneous for EPA to approve, as
part of the SIP, the non-NAAQS related nuisance rule, and EPA has the
authority under section 110(k)(6) to correct that error.
    Comment 5: States have the right to create regulations that are
more stringent than the Federal requirements.
    Response: EPA does not dispute a state's right to create
requirements that, as a matter of state law, are more stringent than
the Federal requirements. Congress affirmed this principle in section
116 of the CAA. This does not, however, alter the fact that the
requirements contained in SIP provisions are limited in scope by
section 110(a) of the CAA. SIPs must provide for the implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS. Ohio's nuisance rule has no
nexus to these statutorily prescribed requirements.
    Comment 6: The record for the proposed action states that EPA was
taking action to promote the novel doctrine of ``regional
consistency.'' Such a doctrine completely contradicts the well-
established principle that SIPs are tailored by states to meet their
specific

air pollution needs and desired protections.
    Response: EPA believes that the commenter's reference to ``the
record'' refers to a January 30, 2020, email from John Mooney, Acting
Director, Air and Radiation Division, EPA, Region 5, to Robert
Hodanbosi, Chief, Air Pollution Control, Ohio EPA (January email) that
was placed in the docket for this rulemaking. It notes that similar
provisions had already been removed from the SIPs of other Region 5
states, ``because states did not rely on those provisions for
attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS.'' The purpose of the email was
to inquire whether Ohio had relied on its nuisance rule in attainment
and maintenance of the NAAQS before proceeding with an error
correction. The reference in the January email to other state actions
merely notes that EPA has reached a similar conclusion in other
rulemaking actions.
    Comment 7: The public cannot precisely tell what the question asked
regarding Ohio EPA's reliance on the nuisance rule for ``attainment''
or ``maintenance'' in the January email means.
    Response: The January email and the Ohio EPA response were included
in the docket for the proposed rulemaking. The January email was clear
in its request that Ohio EPA confirm that it had not relied upon the
nuisance rule in any aspect related to the attainment or maintenance of
a NAAQS. In Ohio EPA's response, it specifically states that it had not
relied on the nuisance rule for ``SIP planning, nonattainment
designations, redesignation requests, maintenance plans, and
determination of nonattainment areas or their boundaries.'' EPA finds
that Ohio EPA clearly understood the question being asked and clearly
identified what was meant by ``attainment'' and ``maintenance'' in its
response to EPA.
    Comment 8: Commenters provided a declaration from William M.
Auberle, a former official with the Regional Air Pollution Control
Agency (RAPCA). Mr. Auberle states that he has direct knowledge of the
inclusion of the Ohio nuisance rule in the Ohio SIP, that the nuisance
rule is an important regulatory tool in achieving and maintaining the
NAAQS, and that he personally used the nuisance rule while an official
with RAPCA as an enforcement tool for achieving and maintaining the
NAAQS.
    Response: RAPCA is a bureau of the Division of Environmental Health
within Public Health--Dayton and Montgomery County. It is a county
agency that contracts with the Ohio EPA to enforce state and local air
pollution control regulations in a six-county region of Ohio. EPA does
not dispute that state and local agencies may have used the nuisance
rule to achieve reductions in criteria pollutants or the importance of
the rule as a tool for local authorities in the protection of public
health and welfare. However, using the nuisance rule to achieve
criteria pollutant reductions is not equivalent to relying on the rule
for SIP purposes, which may include SIP planning, nonattainment
designations, redesignation requests, maintenance plans, and
determination of nonattainment areas or their boundaries. Furthermore,
Ohio EPA, the state agency responsible for development and
implementation of the SIP, has stated that it did not find ``any
instances of the nuisance rule, OAC 3745-15-07, being relied upon, or
intended to be relied upon, for attainment or maintenance of any
NAAQS.''
    Comment 9: Congress intended citizen suits to be an integral part
of CAA enforcement, including SIP enforcement. The NPRM ignores the
important role of citizen suits in CAA enforcement.
    Response: Congress limited the scope of SIPs required under section
110 of the CAA to the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of
the NAAQS. The purpose of this rulemaking action is to remove OAC 3745-
15-07 from the Ohio SIP because it does not support such
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement. This rulemaking action
does not invalidate the Ohio law or affect its applicability to Ohio
sources. Facilities located in Ohio are still subject to the state
nuisance rule. While removal of this rule from the SIP would preclude
its enforcement in Federal courts, it has no impact on the authority to
bring citizen suits in state courts under state law.
    Comment 10: Commenters state that the NPRM would harm already
vulnerable Ohioans by eliminating an important environmental justice
tool. Commenters also raise concerns with the potential impact on other
sensitive populations such as children, the elderly, and individuals
with various health issues including respiratory illnesses.
    Response: The purpose of this rulemaking action is to remove OAC
3745-15-07 from the Ohio SIP because it is not related to the
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS. This
rulemaking action does not invalidate the Ohio law or affect its
applicability to Ohio sources. Facilities located in Ohio are still
subject to the state nuisance rule. EPA supports programs and
activities that promote enforcement of health and environmental
statutes in areas with minority populations and low-income populations
and the protection of children, the elderly, and other vulnerable
populations.
    Comment 11: Several commenters note recent studies linking
particulate matter pollution to an increased incidence of COVID-19
infection and the potential for increased adverse outcomes in areas
with higher levels of air pollution. Commenters state that considering
the current pandemic, EPA should not be relaxing air pollution
requirements at this time.
    Response: The purpose of this rulemaking action is to remove OAC
3745-15-07 from the Ohio SIP because it is not an element of a plan for
the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS.
Consideration of the impacts of air pollution on COVID-19 cases is
beyond the scope of section 110 of the CAA and, thus, beyond the scope
of this rulemaking. Furthermore, this rulemaking action does not
invalidate the Ohio nuisance law or affect its applicability to Ohio
sources, which remain subject to the rule as a matter of state law.
    Comment 11: The following comment was made by over 1800 individuals
through a letter-writing campaign.
    ``I oppose the rollback of the nuisance provision of Ohio's Clean
Air Act regulations.
    The nuisance provision ensures that threats to Ohioans' health and
safety are prohibited, no matter what, and allows Ohio residents to
take local pollution problems into their own hands and protect their
communities by taking polluters to court. Without this provision, it
will be more difficult for Ohioans to address local pollution problems.
    Eliminating this provision also destroys an important tool that
gives both regulators and Ohio residents flexibility to address serious
health concerns based on new scientific developments.''
    Response: The purpose of this rulemaking action is to remove OAC
3745-15-07 from the Ohio SIP because it is not an element of a plan for
the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the NAAQS. This
rulemaking action does not invalidate the Ohio nuisance law, affect its
applicability to Ohio sources or preclude citizen suits in state court.

III. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA has determined that OAC 3745-15-07 was not relied upon by Ohio
to

demonstrate the implementation, maintenance, or enforcement of the
NAAQS. Consequently, EPA finds that its prior approval of OAC 3745-15-
07 into the Ohio SIP was in error. To correct this error, EPA is
removing OAC 3745-15-07 from the approved Ohio SIP pursuant to section
110(k)(6) of the CAA, and codifying this removal by revising the
appropriate paragraph under 40 CFR part 52, subpart KK, 52.1870
(Identification of Plan).

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, EPA is amending regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. As described in the amendments to 40 CFR
part 52 set forth below, EPA is removing provisions of the EPA-Approved
Ohio Regulations from the Ohio SIP, which is incorporated by reference
in accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR part 51. EPA has made, and
will continue to make the SIP generally available through
www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 5 Office (please contact the
person identified in the For Further Information Contact section of
this preamble for more information).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because it is not a significant regulatory
action under Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, 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).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by January 19, 2021. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: October 26, 2020.
Kurt Thiede,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    For reasons set out in the preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is amended as
follows:

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.

Sec.  52.1870  [Amended]

0
2. In Sec.  52.1870, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by removing
the entry for ``3745-15-07'' under ``Chapter 3745-15 General Provisions
on Air Pollution Control''.

[FR Doc. 2020-24065 Filed 11-18-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 63 (Friday, April 1, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 18850]
[FR Doc No: 2016-07340]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 10504-001]

Town of Cedaredge, Colorado; Notice of Application Accepted for
Filing, Soliciting Comments, Motions to Intervene, and Protests

    Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been
filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
    a. Type of Application: Surrender of Exemption.
    b. Project No.: 10504-001.
    c. Date Filed: July 2, 2013.
    d. Applicant: Town of Cedaredge, Colorado.
    e. Name of Project: Cedaredge Project.
    f. Location: On the Cedaredge Municipal Water System of the town of
Cedaredge, in Delta County, Colorado.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: Federal Power Act, 16 U.S.C. 791a-825r.
    h. Applicant Contact: Ms. Kathleen Ann Sickles, Town Administrator,
P.O. Box 398, Cedaredge, CO 81413,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    i. FERC Contact: Mr. Henry Woo,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>    j. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, and
protests, is 30 days from the issuance date of this notice by the
Commission. All documents may be filed electronically via the Internet.
See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp.
If unable to be filed electronically, documents may be paper-filed. To
paper-file, an original and seven copies should be mailed to:
Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20426. Commenters can submit brief comments up to 6,000
characters, without prior registration, using the eComment system at
http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your
name and contact information at the end of your comments.
    Please include the project number (P-10504-001) on any comments,
motions, or recommendations filed.
    k. Description of Request: The applicant proposes to surrender the
exemption for the Cedaredge Project No. P-10504. The applicant states
that the exemption is being surrendered because the project is no
longer economically feasible.
    l. Locations of the Application: A copy of the application is
available for inspection and reproduction at the Commission's Public
Reference Room, located at 888 First Street NE., Room 2A, Washington,
DC 20426, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>. This filing may also be viewed
on the Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits
in the docket number field to access the document. You may also
register online at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to
be notified via email of new filings and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, call 1-866-208-3676 or email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>for TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. A copy is
also available for inspection and reproduction at the address in item
(h) above.
    m. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing
list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
    n. Comments, Protests, or Motions to Intervene: Anyone may submit
comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the
requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211,
.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission
will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who
file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules
may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or
motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified
comment date for the particular application.
    o. Filing and Service of Responsive Documents: Any filing must (1)
bear in all capital letters the title ``COMMENTS'', ``PROTEST'', or
``MOTION TO INTERVENE'' as applicable; (2) set forth in the heading the
name of the applicant and the project number of the application to
which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name, address, and telephone
number of the person protesting or intervening; and (4) otherwise
comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All
comments, motions to intervene, or protests must set forth their
evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR
4.34(b). All comments, motions to intervene, or protests should relate
to project works which are the subject of the exemption surrender.
Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the
applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served
upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular
application. If an intervener files comments or documents with the
Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the
responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve
a copy of the document on that resource agency. A copy of all other
filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof
of service on all persons listed in the service list prepared by the
Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and
385.2010.

    Dated: March 28, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-07340 Filed 3-31-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


 [Federal Register Volume 82, Number 159 (Friday, August 18, 2017)] [Notices] [Page 39424] [FR Doc No: C1-2017-13905]

=======================================================================

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OW-2005-0023; FRL-9961-97-OW]

Proposed Information Collection Request; Comment Request; Clean

Water Act Section 404 State-Assumed Programs; EPA ICR No. 0220.13, OMB

Control No. 2040-0168

Correction

    In notice document 2017-13905, appearing on pages 30861 through

30862, in the issue of Monday, July 3, 2017, make the following

correction:

    On page 30861, in the second column, in the DATES section, on the

second line, ``August 2, 2017'' should read ``September 1, 2017''.

[FR Doc. C1-2017-13905 Filed 8-17-17; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 1301-00-D


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 228 (Friday, November 27, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 73963-73965]
[FR Doc No: 2015-29852]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2014-1048; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-055-AD;
Amendment 39-18332; AD 2015-23-14]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Services B.V. Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
Fokker Services B.V. Model F.28 Mark 0070 and 0100 airplanes. This AD
was prompted by reports that cracks can occur in a frame of the tail
section on certain airplanes. This AD requires a one-time detailed
inspection of the oblique frame 67-2 for any cracking, and repair if
necessary. We are issuing this AD to detect and correct such cracking,
which could lead to failure of the oblique frame 67-2, and consequent
loss of the structural integrity of the tail section.

DATES: This AD becomes effective January 4, 2016.
    The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by
reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of January 4,
2016.

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-1048 or in person at the
Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC.
    For service information identified in this AD, contact Fokker
Services B.V., Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box 1357, 2130 EL
Hoofddorp, the Netherlands; telephone +31 (0)88-6280-350; fax +31
(0)88-6280-111; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.myfokkerfleet.com. You may view this referenced service information
at the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW.,
Renton, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the
FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>. It is also available on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2014-
1048.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington WA 98057-3356; telephone (425)
227-1137; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR
part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to all Fokker Services B.V.
Model F.28 Mark 0070 and 0100 airplanes. The NPRM published in the
Federal Register on January 23, 2015 (80 FR 3500). We are issuing this
AD to detect and correct cracking of the oblique frame 67-2, which
could lead to failure of the oblique frame 67-2, and consequent loss of
the structural integrity of the tail section.
    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA
Airworthiness Directive 2014-0039, dated February 20, 2014, dated
(referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness
Information, or ``the MCAI''), to correct an unsafe condition for all
Fokker Services B.V. Model F.28 Mark 0070 and 0100 airplanes. The MCAI
states:

    Service experience has shown that cracks can occur in oblique
frame 67-2 in the tail section on aeroplanes with more than 29 000
flight cycles (FC).
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, can result in an
exponential crack growth rate, possibly leading to failure of the
oblique frame 67-2 over a certain length and consequent loss of the
structural integrity of the tail section of the aeroplane.
    For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD requires a one-
time [detailed] inspection of the oblique frame 67-2 for cracks and,
depending on findings, accomplishment of a repair.
    Repetitive inspections are planned to be incorporated into a
revision of Fokker Services Report SE-623, which is part of the
Airworthiness Limitations Section of the Instructions for Continued
Airworthiness, for which a separate [EASA] AD is expected to be
published.
    Fokker Services All Operators Message AOF100.187#02 provides
additional information concerning the subject addressed by this
[EASA] AD.

You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-1048-0002.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM (80 FR 3500, January 23,
2015) or on the determination of the cost to the public.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting this AD as proposed except for
minor editorial changes. We have determined that these minor changes:
     Are consistent with the intent that was proposed in the
NPRM (80 FR 3500, January 23, 2015) for correcting the unsafe
condition; and
     Do not add any additional burden upon the public than was
already proposed in the NPRM (80 FR 3500, January 23, 2015).

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    Fokker Services B.V. has issued Service Bulletin SBF100-53-124,
dated January 23, 2014; and Service Bulletin SBF100-53-125, Revision 1,
dated February 13, 2014. The service information describes procedures
for a one-time detailed inspection of the oblique frame 67-2 for any
cracking, and repair if necessary. This service information is
reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it
through their normal course of business or by the means identified in
the ADDRESSES section of this AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD affects 8 airplanes of U.S. registry.
    We also estimate that it will take about 1 work-hour per product to
comply with the basic requirements of this AD. The average labor rate
is $85 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of
this AD on U.S. operators to be $680, or $85 per product.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions will
take about 12 work-hours and require parts costing $0, for a cost of
$1,020 per product. We have no way of determining the number of
aircraft that might need this action.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
    3. Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska; and
    4. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=FAA-2014-1048; or in person at the
Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the
regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information.
The street address for the Docket Operations office (telephone 800-647-
5527) is in the ADDRESSES section.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

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

Adoption of the Amendment

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

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

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

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

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new airworthiness
directive (AD):

2015-23-14 Fokker Services B.V.: Amendment 39-18332. Docket No. FAA-
2014-1048; Directorate Identifier 2014-NM-055-AD.

(a) Effective Date

    This AD becomes effective January 4, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Fokker Services B.V. Model F.28 Mark 0070 and
0100 airplanes, certificated in any category, all serial numbers.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by reports that cracks can occur in the
oblique frame 67-2 in the tail section on certain airplanes. We are
issuing this AD to detect and correct such cracking, which could
lead to failure of the oblique frame 67-2, and consequent loss of
the structural integrity of the tail section.

(f) Compliance

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

(g) Inspection and Repair

    For airplanes that have accumulated more than 29,000 total
flight cycles since the airplane's first flight as of the effective
date of this AD: Within 500 flight cycles or 12 months after the
effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, do a one-time
detailed inspection of the oblique frame 67-2 for any cracking, in
accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of Fokker Service
Bulletin SBF100-53-124, dated January 23, 2014. For the purposes of
this AD, a detailed inspection is an intensive examination of a
specific item, installation, or assembly to detect damage, failure,
or irregularity. Available lighting is normally supplemented with a
direct source of good lighting at an intensity deemed appropriate.
Inspection aids such as mirror, magnifying lenses, etc., may be
necessary. Surface cleaning and elaborate procedures may be
required.

(h) Corrective Action

    If any cracking is found during the inspection required by
paragraph (g) of this AD, before further flight, repair the oblique
frame 67-2, in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions of
Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-53-125, Revision 1, dated February
13, 2014.

(i) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
International Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA,
has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using
the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR
39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight
Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information
directly to the International Branch, send it to ATTN: Tom
Rodriguez, Aerospace Engineer, International Branch, ANM-116,
Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington WA 98057-3356; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (425) 227-
1149. Information may be emailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any approved AMOC, notify your
appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector,
the manager of the local flight standards district office/
certificate holding district office. The AMOC approval letter must
specifically reference this AD.
    (2) Contacting the Manufacturer: For any requirement in this AD
to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer, the action must be
accomplished using a method approved by the Manager, International
Branch, ANM-116, Transport Airplane Directorate, FAA; or the
European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA); or Fokker B.V. Service's
EASA Design Organization Approval (DOA). If approved by the DOA, the
approval must include the DOA-authorized signature.

(j) Related Information

    Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI)
EASA Airworthiness Directive 2014-0039, dated February 20, 2014, for
related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the
Internet at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2014-
1048-0002.

(k) Material Incorporated by Reference

    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference (IBR) of the service information listed
in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) You must use this service information as applicable to do
the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
    (i) Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-53-124, dated January 23,
2014.
    (ii) Fokker Service Bulletin SBF100-53-125, Revision 1, dated
February 13, 2014.
    (3) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Fokker Services B.V., Technical Services Dept., P.O. Box 1357, 2130
EL Hoofddorp, the Netherlands; telephone +31 (0)88-6280-350; fax +31
(0)88-6280-111; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet http://www.myfokkerfleet.com.
    (4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, WA. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
425-227-1221.
    (5) You may view this service information that is incorporated
by reference at the National Archives and Records Administration
(NARA). For information on the availability of this material at
NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Renton, Washington, on November 11, 2015.
Michael Kaszycki,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2015-29852 Filed 11-25-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 241 (Monday, December 18, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 59997-59999]
[FR Doc No: 2017-27215]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2017-0589; A-1-FRL-9972-21-Region 1]

Air Plan Approval; VT; Nonattainment New Source Review and
Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit Program Revisions;
Infrastructure Requirements for National Ambient Air Quality Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve several different revisions to the State Implementation Plan
(SIP) submitted to EPA by the Vermont Department of Environmental
Conservation (VT DEC). On May 23, 2017, Vermont submitted revisions to
EPA satisfying the VT DEC's earlier commitment to adopt and submit
revisions that meet certain requirements of the federal Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) air permit program. Vermont's
submission also included revisions relating to the federal
nonattainment new source review (NNSR) permit program. This action
proposes to approve those revisions and also proposes to fully approve
certain of Vermont's infrastructure SIPs (ISIPs), which were
conditionally approved by EPA on June 27, 2017. Additionally, EPA is
proposing to approve several other minor regulatory changes to the SIP
submitted by VT DEC on May 23, 2017. This action is being taken in
accordance with the Clean Air Act.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before January 17, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R01-
OAR-2017-0589 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
[email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, 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, 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 http://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric Wortman, Air Permits, Toxics, and
Indoor Programs Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New
England Regional Office, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, (Mail Code
OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912, phone number<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax
number<PHONE_NUMBER>, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Vermont's May 23, 2017 SIP Submittal Addressing EPA's June 27,
2017 Conditional Approval Regarding PSD Elements of Infrastructure
SIPs
    A. What is the background information for EPA's June 27, 2017
conditional approval?

    B. What is a conditional approval?
    C. Were the terms of the June 27, 2017 conditional approval met?
II. Proposed Approval of Vermont's May 23, 2017 SIP Submittal
Revising Regulations for NNSR and PSD
III. Proposed Approval of Vermont's May 23, 2017 SIP Submittal
Revising Prohibition Regulations on Particulate Matter
IV. Proposed Approval of Vermont's May 23, 2017 SIP Submittal
Revising Work Practice Standards for Wood Furniture Manufacturers
V. Proposed Approval of Vermont's May 23, 2017 SIP Submittal
Revising Approved Methods for Sampling and Testing of Sources
VI. Proposed Action
VII. Incorporation by Reference
VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Vermont's May 23, 2017 SIP Submittal Addressing EPA's June 27, 2017
Conditional Approval Regarding PSD Elements of Infrastructure SIPs

A. What is the background information for EPA's June 27, 2017
conditional approval?

    On June 27, 2017, EPA published a final conditional approval of
certain elements of Vermont's ISIPs. See 82 FR 29005. That conditional
approval identified two provisions required under the federal PSD
permit program regulations that were not included in the State's ISIPs
submittal. In a letter dated November 21, 2016, the VT DEC committed to
revising its PSD permit program regulations to address the identified
issues and submit the revised regulations to EPA for approval no later
than one year after the effective date of EPA's final action
conditionally approving the ISIPs. The conditional approval was part of
EPA's June 27, 2017 final action on the VT DEC's ISIP submittals for
the 1997 fine particulate matter (PM2.5), 1997 ozone, 2006
PM2.5, 2008 Lead, 2008 ozone, 2010 nitrogen dioxide
(NO2), and 2010 sulfur dioxide (SO2) National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The VT DEC submitted the revised
PSD permit program regulations for our full approval on May 23, 2017.

B. What is a conditional approval?

    Under section 110(k)(4) of the CAA, EPA may conditionally approve a
plan based on a commitment from the State to adopt specific enforceable
measures by a date certain no later than one year from the effective
date of final conditional approval. If EPA subsequently determines that
the State has met its commitment, EPA publishes a document in the
Federal Register notifying the public that EPA is converting the
conditional approval to a full approval.
    However, if the State fails to meet its commitment in a timely
manner, then the conditional approval automatically converts to a
disapproval by operation of law without further action required by EPA.
If that were to occur, EPA would then notify the State by a letter. At
that time, the conditionally approved SIP revisions would not be part
of the State's approved SIP. EPA subsequently would publish a document
in the Federal Register notifying the public that the conditional
approval automatically converted to a disapproval.
    EPA's June 27, 2017 conditional approval required the VT DEC to
submit revised regulations that address two separate provisions of
EPA's PSD permit program regulations that were not included in
Vermont's approved SIP. To address the conditional approval, on May 23,
2017, the VT DEC submitted regulatory revisions for approval into the
State's SIP. The revisions addressed the following federal PSD
requirements:
     40 CFR 51.166(b)(2)(ii), which requires nitrogen oxides
(NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOC) emissions to be
included as precursors to ozone in defining a significant increase in
emissions from a source of air contaminants; and
     40 CFR 51.166, which provides a methodology for
determining the amount of PSD increment available to a new or modified
major source.

C. Were the terms of the June 27, 2017 conditional approval met?

    On December 15, 2016, VT DEC revised the Vermont Air Pollution
Control Regulations (APCR) to address the two provisions identified in
EPA's June 27, 2017 conditional approval. Specifically, the definition
of ``significant'' in APCR Sec.  5-101(80) was revised to define the
significant emissions rate increase for ozone as 40 tons or greater of
either VOCs or NOX as ozone precursors. In addition, VT DEC
revised APCR Sec. Sec.  5-502(4)(c) and 5-502(5)(a) and (b) to require
that PSD increment reviews and the determination of remaining PSD
increment be conducted or determined in accordance with the applicable
regulations at 40 CFR 51.166. EPA has determined that the revisions
made to the Vermont APCR are consistent with the underlying federal PSD
regulations in 40 CFR part 51.
    As noted previously, on May 23, 2017, the VT DEC submitted to EPA
regulatory revisions to address the two provisions identified in the
June 27, 2017 conditional approval. EPA has reviewed VT DEC's
regulatory revisions and found they meet the terms of the June 27, 2017
conditional approval. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to convert the June
27, 2017 conditional approval to a full approval.

II. Proposed Approval of Vermont's May 23, 2017 SIP Submittal Revising
Regulations for NNSR and PSD

    The VT DEC's May 23, 2017 submittal also requested that the
requirements in Vermont's NNSR and PSD permit program at APCR
Sec. Sec.  5-501(9) and 5-502(9) be added to the Vermont SIP. The
provision at Sec.  5-501(9) clarifies that no action under Sec.  5-501
relieves any person from complying with any other requirements of
local, state, or federal law. This statement provides general
information for the public and regulated community regarding applicable
regulations and is appropriate for addition to the Vermont SIP. APCR
Sec.  5-502(9) requires an alternative site analysis to be conducted
when: (1) A source or modification that is major is proposed to be
constructed in a non-attainment area; or (2) a source or modification
is major for ozone and/or precursors to ozone. This provision is
consistent with NNSR permit program requirements in section 173(a)(5)
of the CAA and the additional requirements for states in the ozone
transport region (OTR), such as Vermont, outlined in CAA section
184.\1\ Therefore, EPA is proposing this provision is appropriate for
inclusion in the Vermont SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ CAA section 184 details specific requirements for a group of
states (and the District of Columbia) that make up the OTR. States
in the OTR are required to mandate a certain level of emissions
control for the pollutants that form ozone, even if the areas in the
state meet the ozone standards. Thus, VT DEC is required to treat
precursors to ozone as a nonattainment pollutant even though the
State is designated attainment for the ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Proposed Approval of Vermont's May 23, 2017 SIP Submittal Revising
Prohibition Regulations on Particulate Matter

    VT DEC submitted revisions to APCR Sec. Sec.  5-231(4) and (5) as
part of its May 23, 2017 SIP submittal. APCR Sec.  5-231(4) was revised
to prohibit a process operation to operate without taking reasonable
precautions to prevent particulate matter from becoming airborne. APCR
Sec.  5-231(5) was revised to update and replace the term ``Asphalt
Concrete Plant'' with the more commonly used term ``Hot Mix Asphalt
Plant.'' EPA has reviewed these revisions and is proposing to approve
them into the Vermont SIP. The revised regulations are no less
stringent than the previous SIP approved versions and thus will not
interfere with any applicable requirement concerning

attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other applicable
requirement of the CAA, in accordance with section 110(l) of the CAA.

IV. Proposed Approval of Vermont's May 23, 2017 SIP Submittal Revising
Work Practice Standards for Wood Furniture Manufacturers

    In the May 23, 2017 SIP package, VT DEC submitted revisions to the
work practice standards for wood furniture manufacturing operations at
APCR Sec.  5-253.16(d)(8). The provision was amended to limit the use
of conventional air spray guns to apply finishing materials only when
all emissions from the finishing application station are routed to a
functioning control device. The revised provision is consistent with
the corresponding federal requirement at 40 CFR 63.803(h) in the
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Wood
Furniture Manufacturing Operations at 40 CFR part 63, subpart JJ. The
federal requirement at 40 CFR 63.803(h) was revised on November 21,
2011 (76 FR 72050) and Vermont updated its regulations at APCR Sec.  5-
253.16(d)(8) to provide consistency with the federal regulations. EPA
has analyzed the revisions to APCR Sec.  5-253.16(d)(8) and determined
that the requirements satisfy the Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT) requirements recommended by the Control Techniques
Guidelines (CTG) for wood manufacturing operations.\2\ Because the
revisions are more stringent than the requirements in the previously
approved SIP, VT DEC has satisfied the approval requirements contained
in section 110(l) of the CAA. Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve
this requirement into the Vermont SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See CTG for Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions
from Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations. Document ID: EPA-453/
R-96-007. April, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Proposed Approval of Vermont's May 23, 2017 SIP Submittal Revising
Approved Methods for Sampling and Testing of Sources

    Vermont's May 23, 2017 submittal included minor revisions made to
APCR Sec.  5-404, Methods for Sampling and Testing of Sources, that
provided additional testing options and requirements for sources
required to perform stack testing. Specifically, the revision adds 40
CFR part 51, Appendix M, as a testing option and requires that all
other methods be approved by the Air Pollution Control Officer and EPA,
as opposed to just the Air Pollution Control Officer. We have reviewed
these revisions and are proposing to approve them into the Vermont SIP.
These revisions are consistent with CAA section 110(l).

VI. Proposed Action

    EPA's review of Vermont's May 23, 2017 submittal indicates that the
submittal satisfies the requirements of the CAA and is appropriate for
inclusion into the VT SIP. EPA therefore is proposing to approve the
Vermont SIP revisions discussed in this action. Also, as a result of
our proposed approval of the PSD permitting revisions discussed in
section I above, EPA is also proposing to convert the June 27, 2017
conditional approval of Vermont's ISIPs to a full approval. EPA is
soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this action or on
other relevant matters. These comments will be considered before taking
final action. Interested parties may participate in the Federal
rulemaking procedure by submitting written comments to this proposed
rule by following the instructions listed in the ADDRESSES section of
this Federal Register.

VII. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, 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, EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference into the Vermont SIP the revisions to Vermont's APCR Chapter
5 as described in this document. EPA has made, and will continue to
make, these materials generally available through www.regulations.gov,
and/or at the EPA Region 1 Office (please contact the person identified
in the For Further Information Contact section of this preamble for
more information).

VIII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves 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);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, 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).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: December 6, 2017.
Ken Moraff,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA New England.
[FR Doc. 2017-27215 Filed 12-15-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 116 (Friday, June 15, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 35900-35903]
[FR Doc No: 2012-14645]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2012-0427]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Gilmerton Bridge Center Span Float-in, Elizabeth
River; Norfolk, Portsmouth, and Chesapeake, VA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes establishing a safety zone on the
navigable waters of the Elizabeth River in Norfolk, Portsmouth, and
Chesapeake, VA. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of
life on navigable waters during the Gilmerton Bridge Center Span Float-
in and bridge construction of span placement. This action is intended
to restrict vessel traffic movement to protect mariners from the
hazards associated with the float-in and span placement.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before July 2, 2012.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2012-0427 using any one of the following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
    (2) Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (3) Mail: Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001.
    (4) Hand delivery: Same as mail address above, between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone
number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods.
See the ``Public Participation and Request for Comments'' portion of
the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section below for instructions on
submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this proposed
rule, call or email Hector Cintron, Waterways Management Division
Chief, Sector Hampton Roads, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing or
submitting material to the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

A. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We encourage you to participate in this rulemaking by submitting
comments and related materials. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided.

1. Submitting Comments

    If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking (USCG-2012-0427), indicate the specific section of this
document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each
suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material
online (via http://www.regulations.gov) or by fax, mail, or hand
delivery, but please use only one of these means. If you submit a
comment online via www.regulations.gov, it will be considered received
by the Coast Guard when you successfully transmit the comment. If you
fax, hand deliver, or mail your comment, it will be considered as
having been received by the Coast Guard when it is received at the
Docket Management Facility. We recommend that you include your name and
a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body
of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions
regarding your submission.
    To submit your comment online, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
type the docket number (USCG-2012-0427) in the ``SEARCH'' box and click
``SEARCH.'' Click on ``Submit a Comment'' on the line associated with
this rulemaking.
    If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them
in an unbound format, no larger than 8\1/2\ by 11 inches, suitable for
copying and electronic filing. If you submit comments by mail and would
like to know that they reached the Facility, please enclose a stamped,
self-addressed postcard or envelope. We will consider all comments and
material received during the comment period and may change the rule
based on your comments.

2. Viewing Comments and Documents

    To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this preamble
as being available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov,
type the docket number (USCG-2012-0427) in the ``SEARCH'' box and click
``SEARCH.'' Click on Open Docket Folder on the line associated with
this rulemaking. You may also visit the Docket Management Facility in
Room W12-140 on the ground floor of the Department of Transportation
West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590,
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. We have an agreement with the Department of Transportation to
use the Docket Management Facility.

3. Privacy Act

    Anyone can search the electronic form of comments received into any
of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or
signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association,
business, labor union, etc.). You may review a Privacy Act notice
regarding our public dockets in the January 17, 2008, issue of the
Federal Register (73 FR 3316).

4. Public Meeting

    We do not now plan to hold a public meeting. But you may submit a
request for one using one of the four methods specified under
ADDRESSES. Please explain why you believe a public meeting would be
beneficial. If we determine that one would aid this rulemaking, we will
hold one at a time and place announced by a later notice in the Federal
Register.

B. Basis and Purpose

    On July 31, 2012 through August 4, 2012 with inclement weather
dates of August 5, 2012 through August 9, 2012, PCL Civil Construction,
Inc will remove the existing bascule spans from the Gilmerton Bridge,
transport the new center span from the Eastern Branch of the Elizabeth
River at the Campostella Bridge to the Southern Branch of the Elizabeth
River at the Gilmerton Bridge in Norfolk, Portsmouth, and Chesapeake,
VA and place the center span at the Gilmerton Bridge in Chesapeake, VA.
This movement is scheduled to begin at 6 a.m. on July 31, 2012, weather
permitting. Because of the size of the Barge and the width of the
waterway, vessels will not be able to transit around the Barge,
necessitating closure of the entire waterway to the Gilmerton Bridge.
Due to the need to protect mariners and the public transiting the
Elizabeth River from hazards associated with the span move and
construction of span placement, the Coast Guard believes a moving
safety zone and an extended waterway closure at the Gilmerton Bridge is
necessary. Access to this area would be restricted for public safety
purposes.

C. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary moving safety
zone around the Gilmerton Bridge Center Span barge, restricting vessels
operating in the Navigable Waters on the Elizabeth River of the United
States from the Campostella Bridge located in the Eastern Branch of the
Elizabeth River to

the confluence of the Esatern Branch and the Southern Branch of the
Elizabeth River, upriver, through the Southern Branch of the Elizabeth
River to the Gilmerton Bridge. However, the Coast Guard will reopen the
down river portions of the waterway as the barge transits upriver. The
transit is expected to take approximately seven hours. This action is
necessary to ensure the safety of PCL Construction and vessels
immediately prior to, during, and following the transit of the span.
    In addition, to the moving safety zone, we propose to establish a
safety zone at the Gilmerton Bridge starting at 6 a.m. on July 31,
2012, weather permitting, until work is completed on the placement of
the center span on the Gilmerton Bridge, estimated closure of the
waterway to all vessel traffic at the Gilmerton Bridge is until August
4, 2012, with inclement weather dates of August 5, 2012 through August
9, 2012. During the removal of the existing structures and installation
of the new bridge span there is a danger of falling debris.
Additionally, PCL Construction will be using construction equipment
that will obstruct the waterway immediately under and adjacent to the
Gilmerton Bridge. This safety zone is proposed in the interest of
public safety during span placement at the Gilmerton Bridge and will be
enforced from 6 a.m. on July 31, 2012, weather permitting, until August
4, 2012, with inclement weather dates of August 5, 2012 through August
9, 2012. Access to the safety zone would be restricted during the
specified dates. Except for vessels authorized by the Captain of the
Port or his Representative, no person or vessel may enter or remain in
the safety zone. Coast Guard Captain of the Port will give notice of
the enforcement of the safety zone by all appropriate means to provide
the widest dissemination of notice among the affected segments of the
public. This will include publication in the Local Notice to Mariners
and Marine Information Broadcasts. Marine information and facsimile
broadcasts may also be made for these events, beginning 24 to 48 hours
before the event.

D. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on 14 of these statutes or executive orders.

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
as supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. The primary impact of
these regulations will be on vessels wishing to transit the affected
waterways during the moving safety zone accompanying the Gilmerton
Bridge Span Barge and the safety zone at the Gilmerton Bridge beginning
at 6 a.m. on July 31, 2012 through August 4, 2012, with inclement
weather dates of August 5, 2012 through August 9, 2012. Although these
regulations prevent traffic from transiting a portion of the Elizabeth
River during these events, that restriction is limited in duration,
affects only a limited area, and will be well publicized to allow
mariners to make alternative plans for transiting the affected area.
This regulation is designed to ensure such transit is conducted in a
safe and orderly fashion.

2. Impact Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered the impact of this proposed rule on small entities. The
Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. This proposed rule would affect the following entities,
some of which might be small entities: the owners or operators of
vessels intending to operate or anchor in portions of the Elizabeth
River, in Virginia. The regulations would not have a significant impact
on a substantial number of small entities for the following reasons:
The restrictions are limited in duration, affect only limited areas,
and will be well publicized to allow mariners to make alternative plans
for transiting the affected areas.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this rule would have
a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to what
degree this rule would economically affect it.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule so that they can better
evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking. 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 LCDR Hector Cintron, Waterways
Management Division Chief, Sector Hampton Roads, Coast Guard; telephone
757-668-5581, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The Coast Guard will not
retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this
proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

4. Collection of Information

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

5. Federalism

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

6. 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.

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

8. Taking of Private Property

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

9. Civil Justice Reform

    This proposed 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.

10. Protection of Children

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

11. Indian Tribal Governments

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

12. Energy Effects

    We have analyzed this proposed 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.

13. Technical Standards

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

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and
have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a
category of actions which do not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. This rule is categorically
excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the
Commandant Instruction. Upon receipt of consultation comments all
documentation will be made available in the docket where indicated
under ADDRESSES. This proposed rule involves establishing a temporary
safety zone. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the
discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed
rule.

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 proposes
to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

    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, 160.5; Pub. L. 107-
295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

    2. Add Sec.  165.T05-0427 to read as follows:

165.T05-0427  Safety Zone; Gilmerton Bridge Center Span Float-in,
Elizabeth River; Norfolk, Portsmouth, and Chesapeake, Virginia.

    (a) Regulated Area. The following area is a safety zone:
    Regulated Area 1--All waters of the Eastern Branch of the Elizabeth
River within 400 feet astern the Gilmerton Bridge Center Span Barge
extending to the entrance of the Southern Branch of the Elizabeth River
and then continuing upriver in the Southern Branch of Elizabeth River
to the Gilmerton Bridge in the vicinity of Norfolk, Portsmouth and
Chesapeake, VA. As the Gilmerton Bridge Center Span Barge transits
through the waterway, the down river portions of the waterway will
reopen.
    Regulated Area 2-All waters of the Southern Branch of the Elizabeth
River within 400 feet of the existing Gilmerton Bridge in the vicinity
of Chesapeake, VA.
    (b) Definition: For the purposes of this part, Captain of the Port
Representative means any U.S. Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or
petty officer who has been authorized by the Captain of the Port,
Hampton Roads, Virginia to act on his behalf.
    (c) Regulations:
    (1) In accordance with the general regulations in 165.23 of this
part, entry into this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the
Captain of the Port, Hampton Roads or his designated representatives.
    (2) The operator of any vessel in the immediate vicinity of this
safety zone shall:
    (i) Stop the vessel immediately upon being directed to do so by any
commissioned, warrant or petty officer on shore or on board a vessel
that is displaying a U.S. Coast Guard Ensign.
    (ii) Proceed as directed by any commissioned, warrant or petty
officer on shore or on board a vessel that is displaying a U.S. Coast
Guard Ensign.
    (3) The Captain of the Port, Hampton Roads can be reached through
the Sector Duty Officer at Sector Hampton Roads in Portsmouth, Virginia
at telephone Number<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (4) The Coast Guard Representatives enforcing the safety zone can
be contacted on VHF-FM marine band radio channel 13 (165.65Mhz) and
channel 16 (156.8 Mhz).
    (d) Enforcement Period: This regulation will be enforced starting
at 6 a.m. on July 31, 2012 through August 4, 2012, with inclement
weather dates of August 5, 2012 through August 9, 2012.

    Dated: May 31, 2012.
Mark S. Ogle,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Hampton Roads.
[FR Doc. 2012-14645 Filed 6-14-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register: January 12, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 8)]
[Notices]
[Page 1565-1566]
[DOCID:fr12ja07-111]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of Filing and Information Services,
Washington, DC 20549.

Extension:
    Rule 35d-1; SEC File No. 270-491; OMB Control No. 3235-0548.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) (``Act'') the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget (``OMB'') a request for extension of the previously approved
collection of information discussed below.
    Rule 35d-1 (17 CFR 270.35d-1) under the Investment Company Act of
1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-1 et seq.) generally requires that investment
companies with certain names invest at least 80% of their assets
according to what their names suggests. The rule provides that an
affected investment company must either adopt this 80% requirement as a
fundamental policy or adopt a policy to provide notice to shareholders
at least 60 days prior to any change in its 80% investment policy. This
preparation and delivery of the notice to existing shareholders is a
collection of information within the meaning of the Act.
    The Commission estimates that there are 7,200 open-end and closed-
end management investment companies and series that have descriptive
names that are governed by the rule. The Commission estimates that of
these 7,200 investment companies, approximately 24 provide prior notice
to their shareholders of a change in their investment policies per
year. The Commission estimates that the annual burden associated with
the notice requirement of the rule is 20 hours per affected investment
company or series. The total burden hours for Rule 35d-1 is 480 per
year in the aggregate (24 responses x 20 hours per response). Estimates
of average burden hours are made solely for the purposes of the Act,
and are not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative
survey or study of the costs of Commission rules and forms.
    The collection of information under Rule 35d-1 is mandatory. The
information provided under Rule 35d-1 is not kept confidential. An
agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to a

collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control
number.
    General comments regarding the above information should be directed
to the following persons: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office
Building, Washington, DC 20503 or e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
and (ii) R. Corey Booth, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities
and Exchange Commission, C/O Shirley Martinson 6432 General Green Way,
Alexandria, VA, 22312; or send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of this notice.

    January 3, 2007.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-301 Filed 1-11-07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 181 (Tuesday, September 18, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 47207]
[FR Doc No: 2018-20278]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC
20549-2736

Extension:
    Regulation 14C (Commission Rules 14c-1 through 14c-7 and
Schedule 14C), SEC File No. 270-057, OMB Control No. 3235-0057

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and
Budget for extension and approval.
    Section 14(c) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
``Exchange Act'') operates to require issuers that do not solicit
proxies or consents from any or all of the holders of record of a class
of securities registered under Section 12 of the Exchange Act and in
accordance with the rules and regulations prescribed under Section
14(a) in connection with a meeting of security holders (including
action by consent) to distribute to any holders that were not solicited
an information statement substantially equivalent to the information
that would be required to be transmitted if a proxy or consent
solicitation were made. Regulation 14C (Exchange Act Rules 14c-1
through 14c-7 and Schedule 14C) (17 CFR 240.14c-1 through 240.14c-7 and
240.14c-101) sets forth the requirements for the dissemination, content
and filing of the information statement. We estimate that Schedule 14C
takes approximately 130.9197 hours per response and will be filed by
approximately 569 issuers annually. In addition, we estimate that 75%
of the 130.9197 hours per response (98.1898 hours) is prepared by the
issuer for an annual reporting burden of 55,870 hours (98.1898 hours
per response x 569 responses).
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether this collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the agency, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden
imposed by the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d)
ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on
respondents, including through the use of automated collection
techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will
be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60
days of this publication.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid control number.
    Please direct your written comments to Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Candace
Kenner, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an email to:
[email protected].

    Dated: September 12, 2018.
Eduardo A. Aleman,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-20278 Filed 9-17-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P