[Federal Register: June 30, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 125)]
[Notices]
[Page 37856-37860]
[DOCID:fr30jn10-111]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Investment Company Act Release No. 29331; File No. 812-13218]

Lazard Global Total Return and Income Fund, Inc., et al.; Notice
of Application

June 24, 2010.
AGENCY: Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'').

ACTION: Notice of application under section 6(c) of the Investment
Company Act of 1940 (``Act'') for an exemption from section 19(b) of
the Act and rule 19b-1 under the Act.

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

    Summary of Application: Applicants request an order to permit
certain registered closed-end investment companies to make periodic
distributions of long-term capital gains with respect to their
outstanding common stock as frequently as monthly in any one taxable
year, and as frequently as distributions are specified by or in
accordance with the terms of any outstanding preferred stock that such
investment companies may issue.
    Applicants: Lazard Global Total Return and Income Fund, Inc.
(``LGI''), Lazard World Dividend & Income Fund, Inc. (``LOR'') (each, a
``Fund'') and Lazard Asset Management LLC (the ``Investment Adviser'').
    Filing Dates: The application was filed on July 25, 2005 and
amended on

July 15, 2009, September 3, 2009, May 5, 2010 and June 8, 2010.
    Hearing or Notification of Hearing: An order granting the
application will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing.
Interested persons may request a hearing by writing to the Commission's
Secretary and serving applicants with a copy of the request, personally
or by mail. Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by
5:30 p.m. on July 20, 2010, and should be accompanied by proof of
service on applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a
certificate of service. Hearing requests should state the nature of the
writer's interest, the reason for the request, and the issues
contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request
notification by writing to the Commission's Secretary.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street,
NE., Washington, DC 20549-1090; Applicants, 30 Rockefeller Plaza, New
York, New York 10112-6300, Contact: Brian D. Simon, Esq.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Emerson S. Davis, Senior Counsel, at
(202) 551-6868, or Julia K. Gilmer, Branch Chief, at<PHONE_NUMBER>
(Division of Investment Management, Office of Investment Company
Regulation).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The following is a summary of the
application. The complete application may be obtained via the
Commission's Web site by searching for the file number, or for an
applicant using the Company name box, at http://www.sec.gov/search/
search.htm, or by calling<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Applicants' Representations

    1. Each of LGI and LOR is a closed-end management investment
company registered under the Act.\1\ LGI's investment objective is
total return, consisting of capital appreciation and income. LOR's
investment objective is total return through a combination of
dividends, income and capital appreciation. The common shares issued by
LGI and LOR are listed on the NYSE. As of the date of the application,
LGI and LOR did not intend to issue any shares of preferred stock.
Applicants believe that the shareholders of LGI and LOR are generally
conservative, dividend-sensitive investors who desire current income
periodically.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ All existing registered closed-end investment companies that
currently intend to rely on the requested order are named as
applicants. Applicants request that the order also apply to each
registered closed-end investment company that in the future is
advised by the Investment Adviser (including any successor in
interest) or by an entity controlling, controlled by, or under
common control (within the meaning of section 2(a)(9) of the Act)
with the Investment Adviser. Any closed-end investment company that
relies on the requested order in the future will comply with the
terms and conditions of the order and will satisfy each of the
representations in the application except that such representations
will be made in respect of actions by the board of trustees or
directors of such future fund and will be made at a future time.
LGI, LOR and as the context requires, such future funds, are
collectively referred to as the ``Funds'' and separately as a
``Fund''. A successor in interest is limited to an entity that
results from a reorganization into another jurisdiction or a change
in the type of business organization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. The Investment Adviser, a subsidiary of Lazard Fr[egrave]res &
Co., is registered as an investment adviser under the Investment
Advisers Act of 1940. The Investment Adviser serves as investment
adviser to LGI and LOR.
    3. Applicants state that on June 2, 2009 and August 20, 2009,
respectively, the boards of directors of LGI and LOR (each, a
``Board''), including a majority of the members of each Board who are
not ``interested persons'' as defined in section 2(a)(19) of the Act
(the ``Independent Directors''), reviewed information regarding the
purpose and terms of a proposed distribution policy, the relationship
between LGI's or LOR's distribution rate on its common shares under the
policy and its total return (in relation to net asset value per share),
whether the rate of distribution would exceed LGI's or LOR's expected
total return in relation to its net asset value per share and any
reasonably foreseeable material effects of such policy on LGI's or
LOR's long-term total return (in relation to market price and net asset
value per share). Applicants state that the Independent Directors of
LGI and LOR also considered what conflicts of interest the Investment
Adviser and the affiliated persons of the Investment Adviser and LGI
and LOR might have with respect to the adoption or implementation of
such policy. Applicants further state that after considering such
information, the Board, including the Independent Directors, approved a
distribution policy with respect to each of LGI's and LOR's common
shares (each a ``Plan'') and determined that such Plan is in the best
interests of each respective Fund's common shareholders.
    4. Applicants state that the purpose of LGI's and LOR's Plans is to
make fixed periodic distributions to provide steady cash flow to LGI's
and LOR's shareholders. Under each Plan, each of LGI and LOR would
distribute to its respective common shareholders a periodic, level
distribution as frequently as monthly, based on a fixed amount per
share, a fixed percentage of market price or a fixed percentage of the
Fund's net asset value per common share, any of which may be adjusted
from time to time. Applicants state that the minimum annual
distribution rate with respect to LGI's and LOR's common stock would be
independent of performance during any particular period but would be
expected to correlate with such Fund's performance over time.
Applicants further explain that each distribution on the common shares
would be at the stated rate then in effect, except for extraordinary
distributions and potential increases or decreases in the final
dividend periods in light of the Fund's performance for the entire
calendar year and to enable the Fund to comply with the distribution
requirements of Subchapter M of the Internal Revenue Code (``Code'')
for the calendar year.
    5. Prior to a Fund relying on the Order, the Fund's Board,
including a majority of its Independent Directors, will adopt policies
and procedures under rule 38a-1 under the Act that (a) are reasonably
designed to ensure that all notices sent to the Fund's shareholders
pursuant to section 19(a) of the Act, rule 19a-1 under the Act and
condition IV below (each a ``19(a) Notice'') include the disclosure
required by rule 19a-1 under the Act and by condition II.A. below, and
that all other written communications by the Fund or its agents
regarding distributions under the Fund's Plan include the disclosure
required by condition III.A. below and (b) that require each Fund to
keep records that demonstrate its compliance with all of the conditions
of the requested order and that are necessary for such Fund to form the
basis for, or demonstrate the calculation of, the amounts disclosed in
its 19(a) Notices.

Applicants' Legal Analysis

    1. Section 19(b) generally makes it unlawful for any registered
investment company to make long-term capital gains distributions more
than once every twelve months. Rule 19b-1 limits the number of capital
gains dividends, as defined in section 852(b)(3)(C) of the Code
(``distributions''), that a fund may make with respect to any one
taxable year to one, plus a supplemental ``clean up'' distribution made
pursuant to section 855 of the Code not exceeding 10% of the total
amount distributed for the year, plus one additional capital gain
dividend made in whole or in part to avoid the excise tax under section
4982 of the Code.
    2. Section 6(c) provides, in relevant part, that the Commission may
exempt any person or transaction from any provision of the Act to the
extent that such exemption is necessary or

appropriate in the public interest and consistent with the protection
of investors and the purposes fairly intended by the policy and
provisions of the Act.
    3. Applicants state that the one of the concerns leading to the
enactment of section 19(b) and adoption of rule 19b-1 was that
shareholders might be unable to distinguish between frequent
distributions of capital gains and dividends from investment income.
Applicants state, however, that rule 19a-1 effectively addresses this
concern by requiring that a separate statement showing the sources of a
distribution (e.g., estimated net income, net short-term capital gains,
net long-term capital gains and/or return of capital) accompany any
distributions (or the confirmation of the reinvestment of
distributions) estimated to be sourced in part from capital gains or
capital. Applicants also state that the same information is, or will
be, included in each Fund's annual report to shareholders and on its
IRS Form 1099-DIV, which is sent to each common and preferred
shareholder who received distributions during a particular year
(including shareholders who have sold shares during a particular year).
    4. Applicants further state that each of the Funds will make the
additional disclosures required by the conditions set forth below, and
each of them will adopt compliance policies and procedures in
accordance with rule 38a-1 under the Act to ensure that all 19(a)
Notices and disclosures are sent to shareholders. Applicants argue that
rule 19a-1, the Plans and the compliance policies would ensure that
each Fund's shareholders are provided sufficient information to
understand that their periodic distributions are not tied to the Fund's
net investment income (which for this purpose is the Fund's taxable
income other than from capital gains) and realized capital gains to
date, and may not represent yield or investment return. Applicants also
state that compliance with each Fund's compliance procedures and
condition III set forth below will ensure that prospective shareholders
and third parties are provided with the same information. Accordingly,
applicants assert that continuing to subject the Funds to section 19(b)
and rule 19b-1 would afford shareholders no extra protection.
    5. Applicants note that section 19(b) and rule 19b-1 also were
intended to prevent certain improper sales practices, including, in
particular, the practice of urging an investor to purchase shares of a
fund on the basis of an upcoming capital gains dividend (``selling the
dividend''), where the dividend would result in an immediate
corresponding reduction in NAV and would be in effect a taxable return
of the investor's capital. Applicants assert that the ``selling the
dividend'' concern should not apply to closed-end investment companies,
such as the Funds, which do not continuously distribute shares.
According to applicants, if the underlying concern extends to secondary
market purchases of shares of closed-end funds that are subject to a
large upcoming capital gains dividend, adoption of a periodic
distribution plan actually helps minimize the concern by avoiding,
through periodic distributions, any buildup of large end-of-the-year
distributions.
    6. Applicants also note that common shares of closed-end funds that
invest primarily in equity securities often trade in the marketplace at
a discount to their NAV. Applicants believe that this discount may be
reduced if the Fund is permitted to pay relatively frequent dividends
on their common shares at a consistent rate, whether or not those
dividends contain an element of long-term capital gain.
    7. Applicants assert that the application of rule 19b-1 to a Plan
actually could have an inappropriate influence on portfolio management
decisions. Applicants state that, in the absence of an exemption from
rule 19b-1, the adoption of a periodic distribution plan imposes
pressure on management (i) not to realize any net long-term capital
gains until the point in the year that the fund can pay all of its
remaining distributions in accordance with rule 19b-1, and (ii) not to
realize any long-term capital gains during any particular year in
excess of the amount of the aggregate pay-out for the year (since as a
practical matter excess gains must be distributed and accordingly would
not be available to satisfy pay-out requirements in following years),
notwithstanding that purely investment considerations might favor
realization of long-term gains at different times or in different
amounts. Applicants assert that the limitation on the number of capital
gain distributions that a fund may make with respect to any one year
imposed by rule 19b-1 may prevent the normal and efficient operation of
a periodic distribution plan whenever that fund's realized net long-
term capital gains in any year exceed the total of the periodic
distributions that may include such capital gains under the rule.
    8. Applicants also assert that rule 19b-1 may force fixed regular
periodic distributions under a periodic distribution plan to be funded
with returns of capital \2\ (to the extent net investment income and
realized short-term capital gains are insufficient to fund the
distribution), even though realized net long-term capital gains
otherwise could be available. To distribute all of a fund's long-term
capital gains within the limits in rule 19b-1, a fund may be required
to make total distributions in excess of the annual amount called for
by its periodic distribution plan, or to retain and pay taxes on the
anomalous excess amount. Applicants assert that the requested order
would minimize these anomalous effects of rule 19b-1 by enabling the
Funds to realize long-term capital gains as often as investment
considerations dictate without fear of violating rule 19b-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Returns of capital as used in the application means return
of capital for financial accounting purposes and not for tax
accounting purposes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    9. Applicants state that Revenue Ruling 89-81 under the Code
requires that a fund that seeks to qualify as a regulated investment
company under the Code and that has both common stock and preferred
stock outstanding designate the types of income, e.g., investment
income and capital gains, in the same proportion as the total
distributions distributed to each class for the tax year. To satisfy
the proportionate designation requirements of Revenue Ruling 89-81,
whenever a fund has realized a long-term capital gain with respect to a
given tax year, the fund must designate the required proportionate
share of such capital gain to be included in common and preferred stock
dividends. Applicants state that although rule 19b-1 allows a fund some
flexibility with respect to the frequency of capital gains
distributions, a fund might use all of the exceptions available under
the rule for a tax year and still need to distribute additional capital
gains allocated to the preferred stock to comply with Revenue Ruling
89-81.
    10. Applicants assert that the potential abuses addressed by
section 19(b) and rule 19b-1 do not arise with respect to preferred
stock issued by a closed-end fund. Applicants assert that such
distributions are fixed or determined in periodic auctions by reference
to short-term interest rates rather than by reference to performance of
the issuer and Revenue Ruling 89-81 determines the proportion of such
distributions that are comprised of the long-term capital gains.
    11. Applicants also submit that the ``selling the dividend''
concern is not applicable to preferred stock, which entitles a holder
to no more than a periodic dividend at a fixed rate or the

rate determined by the market, and, like a debt security, is priced
based upon its liquidation value, dividend rate, credit quality and
frequency of payment. Applicants state that investors buy preferred
shares for the purpose of receiving payments at the frequency bargained
for, and do not expect the liquidation value of their shares to change.
    12. Applicants request an order under section 6(c) granting an
exemption from the provisions of section 19(b) and rule 19b-1 to permit
each Fund to make periodic capital gain distributions (as defined in
section 852(b)(3)(C) of the Code) as often as monthly in any one
taxable year in respect of its common shares and as often as specified
by or determined in accordance with the terms thereof in respect of its
preferred shares.

Applicants' Conditions

    Applicants agree that the order of the Commission granting the
requested relief will be subject to the following conditions:
    I. Compliance Review and Reporting. The Fund's chief compliance
officer will: (a) Report to the Fund's Board, no less frequently than
once every three months or at the next regularly scheduled quarterly
Board meeting, whether (i) the Fund and its Investment Adviser have
complied with the conditions of the Order, and (ii) a material
compliance matter, as defined in rule 38a-1(e)(2) under the Act, has
occurred with respect to such conditions; and (b) review the adequacy
of the policies and procedures adopted by the Board no less frequently
than annually.
    II. Disclosures to Fund Shareholders: A. Each 19(a) Notice
disseminated to the holders of the Fund's common shares, in addition to
the information required by section19(a) and rule 19a-1:
    1. Will provide, in a tabular or graphical format:
    (a) The amount of the distribution, on a per common share basis,
together with the amounts of such distribution amount, on a per common
share basis and as a percentage of such distribution amount, from
estimated: (A) Net investment income; (B) net realized short-term
capital gains; (C) net realized long-term capital gains; and (D) return
of capital or other capital source;
    (b) The fiscal year-to-date cumulative amount of distributions, on
a per common share basis, together with the amounts of such cumulative
amount, on a per common share basis and as a percentage of such
cumulative amount of distributions, from estimated: (A) Net investment
income; (B) net realized short-term capital gains; (C) net realized
long-term capital gains; and (D) return of capital or other capital
source;
    (c) The average annual total return in relation to the change in
NAV for the 5-year period (or, if the Fund's history of operations is
less than five years, the time period commencing immediately following
the Fund's first public offering) ending on the last day of the month
ended immediately prior to the most recent distribution record date
compared to the current fiscal period's annualized distribution rate
expressed as a percentage of NAV as of the last day of the month prior
to the most recent distribution record date; and
    (d) The cumulative total return in relation to the change in NAV
from the last completed fiscal year to the last day of the month prior
to the most recent distribution record date compared to the fiscal
year-to-date cumulative distribution rate expressed as a percentage of
NAV as of the last day of the month prior to the most recent
distribution record date.
    Such disclosure shall be made in a type size at least as large and
as prominent as the estimate of the sources of the current
distribution; and
    2. Will include the following disclosure:
    (a) ``You should not draw any conclusions about the Fund's
investment performance from the amount of this distribution or from the
terms of the Fund's Plan'';
    (b) ``The Fund estimates that it has distributed more than its
income and net realized capital gains; therefore, a portion of your
distribution may be a return of capital. A return of capital may occur,
for example, when some or all of the money that you invested in the
Fund is paid back to you. A return of capital distribution does not
necessarily reflect the Fund's investment performance and should not be
confused with `yield' or `income' '' \3\; and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The disclosure in condition II.A.2.(b) will be included only
if the current distribution or the fiscal year-to-date cumulative
distributions are estimated to include a return of capital.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (c) ``The amounts and sources of distributions reported in this
19(a) Notice are only estimates and are not being provided for tax
reporting purposes. The actual amounts and sources of the amounts for
tax reporting purposes will depend upon the Fund's investment
experience during the remainder of its fiscal year and may be subject
to changes based on tax regulations. The Fund will send you a Form
1099-DIV for the calendar year that will tell you how to report these
distributions for federal income tax purposes.''
    Such disclosure shall be made in a type size at least as large as
and as prominent as any other information in the 19(a) Notice and
placed on the same page in close proximity to the amount and the
sources of the distribution.
    B. On the inside front cover of each report to shareholders under
rule 30e-1 under the Act, the Fund will:
    1. Describe the terms of the Plan (including the fixed amount or
fixed percentage of the distributions and the frequency of the
distributions);
    2. Include the disclosure required by condition II.A.2.(a) above;
    3. State, if applicable, that the Plan provides that the Board may
amend or terminate the Plan at any time without prior notice to Fund
shareholders; and
    4. Describe any reasonably foreseeable circumstances that might
cause the Fund to terminate the Plan and any reasonably foreseeable
consequences of such termination.
    C. Each report provided to shareholders under rule 30e-1 and each
prospectus filed with the Commission on Form N-2 under the Act, will
provide the Fund's total return in relation to changes in NAV in the
financial highlights table and in any discussion about the Fund's total
return.
    III. Disclosure to Shareholders, Prospective Shareholders and Third
Parties: A. Each Fund will include the information contained in the
relevant 19(a) Notice, including the disclosure required by condition
II.A.2 above, in any written communication (other than a communication
on Form 1099) about the Plan or distributions under the Plan by the
Fund, or agents that the Fund has authorized to make such communication
on the Fund's behalf, to any Fund common shareholder, prospective
common shareholder or third-party information provider;
    B. The Fund will issue, contemporaneously with the issuance of any
19(a) Notice, a press release containing the information in the 19(a)
Notice and will file with the Commission the information contained in
such 19(a) Notice, including the disclosure required by condition
II.A.2 above, as an exhibit to its next filed Form N-CSR; and
    C. The Fund will post prominently a statement on its (or the
Investment Adviser's) Web site containing the information in each 19(a)
Notice, including the disclosure required by condition II.A.2 above,
and will maintain such information on such Web site for at least 24
months.
    IV. Delivery of 19(a) Notices to Beneficial Owners: If a broker,
dealer, bank or other person (``financial intermediary'') holds common
stock

issued by a Fund in nominee name, or otherwise, on behalf of a
beneficial owner, the Fund: (a) Will request that the financial
intermediary, or its agent, forward the 19(a) Notice to all beneficial
owners of the Fund's shares held through such financial intermediary;
(b) will provide, in a timely manner, to the financial intermediary, or
its agent, enough copies of the 19(a) Notice assembled in the form and
at the place that the financial intermediary, or its agent, reasonably
requests to facilitate the financial intermediary's sending of the
19(a) Notice to each beneficial owner of the Fund's shares; and (c)
upon the request of any financial intermediary, or its agent, that
receives copies of the 19(a) Notice, will pay the financial
intermediary, or its agent, the reasonable expenses of sending the
19(a) Notice to such beneficial owners.
    V. Additional Board Determinations for Funds Whose Shares Trade at
a Premium: If: A. A Fund's common shares have traded on the exchange
that they primarily trade on at the time in question at an average
premium to NAV equal to or greater than 10%, as determined on the basis
of the average of the discount or premium to NAV of the Fund's common
shares as of the close of each trading day over a 12-week rolling
period (each such 12-week rolling period ending on the last trading day
of each week); and
    B. The Fund's annualized distribution rate for such 12-week rolling
period, expressed as a percentage of NAV as of the ending date of such
12-week rolling period, is greater than the Fund's average annual total
return in relation to the change in NAV over the 2-year period ending
on the last day of such 12-week rolling period; then:
    1. At the earlier of the next regularly scheduled meeting or within
four months of the last day of such 12-week rolling period, the Board
including a majority of the Independent Directors:
    (a) Will request and evaluate, and the Investment Adviser will
furnish, such information as may be reasonably necessary to make an
informed determination of whether the Plan should be continued or
continued after amendment;
    (b) Will determine whether continuation, or continuation after
amendment, of the Plan is consistent with the Fund's investment
objective(s) and policies and in the best interests of the Fund and its
shareholders, after considering the information in condition V.B.1.(a)
above; including, without limitation:
    (1) Whether the Plan is accomplishing its purpose(s);
    (2) The reasonably foreseeable material effects of the Plan on the
Fund's long-term total return in relation to the market price and NAV
of the Fund's common shares; and
    (3) The Fund's current distribution rate, as described in condition
V.B above, compared with the Fund's average annual taxable income or
total return over the 2-year period, as described in condition V.B, or
such longer period as the Board deems appropriate; and
    (c) Based upon that determination, will approve or disapprove the
continuation, or continuation after amendment, of the Plan; and
    2. The Board will record the information considered by it,
including its consideration of the factors listed in condition
V.B.1.(b) above, and the basis for its approval or disapproval of the
continuation, or continuation after amendment, of the Plan in its
meeting minutes, which must be made and preserved for a period of not
less than six years from the date of such meeting, the first two years
in an easily accessible place.
    VI. Public Offerings: A Fund will not make a public offering of the
Fund's common shares other than:
    A. A rights offering below NAV to holders of the Fund's common
shares;
    B. An offering in connection with a dividend reinvestment plan,
merger, consolidation, acquisition, spin-off or reorganization of the
Fund; or
    C. An offering other than an offering described in conditions VI.A
and VI.B above, provided that, with respect to such other offering:
    1. The Fund's annualized distribution rate for the six months
ending on the last day of the month ended immediately prior to the most
recent distribution record date,\4\ expressed as a percentage of NAV
per share as of such date, is no more than 1 percentage point greater
than the Fund's average annual total return for the 5-year period
ending on such date; \5\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ If the Fund has been in operation fewer than six months, the
measured period will begin immediately following the Fund's first
public offering.
    \5\ If the Fund has been in operation fewer than five years, the
measured period will begin immediately following the Fund's first
public offering.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. The transmittal letter accompanying any registration statement
filed with the Commission in connection with such offering discloses
that the Fund has received an order under section 19(b) to permit it to
make periodic distributions of long-term capital gains with respect to
its common stock as frequently as twelve times each year, and as
frequently as distributions are specified by or determined in
accordance with the terms of any outstanding preferred stock that such
Fund may issue.
    VII. Amendments to Rule 19b-1: The requested order will expire on
the effective date of any amendments to rule 19b-1 that provide relief
permitting certain closed-end investment companies to make periodic
distributions of long-term capital gains with respect to their
outstanding common stock as frequently as twelve times each year.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management,
under delegated authority.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-15887 Filed 6-29-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 53 (Tuesday, March 19, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 9993-9995]
[FR Doc No: 2019-04771]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2018-0397; FRL-9990-84-Region 3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Maryland; Basic Inspection and Maintenance Program Certification State
Implementation Plan for the Baltimore Nonattainment Area Under the 2008
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
State of Maryland. This SIP revision addresses Clean Air Act (CAA)
requirements for enactment of a vehicle emissions inspection and
maintenance (I/M) program in the Baltimore area of the state--where
ambient air quality has been classified by EPA as ``Moderate'' or
higher nonattainment of federal ozone national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS) established in 2008 (hereafter referred to as the
2008 ozone NAAQS). The requirements for moderate ozone nonattainment
areas under the CAA require the state to demonstrate that they have
adopted a basic I/M program (as defined by the CAA), or in the event an
I/M program was previously enacted under a prior NAAQS or other CAA
requirement, that the existing program meets all applicable federal
requirements for a basic I/M program. Maryland's SIP revision that is
the subject of this action pertains to CAA requirements for a basic I/M
program in the Baltimore area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. EPA's action to
propose approval of this SIP revision is being taken under the
applicable requirements of the CAA.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before April 18, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R03-
OAR-2018-0397 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>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://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Rehn,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 15, 2018, the Maryland Department
of Environment (MDE) submitted a revision to its SIP to certify that
the existing Maryland vehicle emission inspection program implemented
in the Baltimore ozone nonattainment area satisfies the CAA section
182(b)(4) requirements for a vehicle inspection program applicable to
the Baltimore 2008 moderate ozone nonattainment area.

I. Background

    On March 27, 2008, EPA revised the primary and secondary 8-hour
ozone NAAQS to 0.075 parts per million (ppm) to provide increased
protection of public health and welfare (73 FR 16436). The 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS replaced the previous 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS of 0.080 ppm.
Those standards are met when the 3-year average of the annual fourth
highest daily maximum 8-hour average ozone concentration of all ambient
air monitors is less than or equal to 0.075 ppm.
    Promulgation of a revised NAAQS triggers a requirement for EPA to
designate all areas of the nation as nonattainment, attainment, or
unclassifiable for the NAAQS. For the ozone NAAQS, this also involves
classifying any nonattainment areas at the time of designation--per
requirements set forth at CAA sections 107(d)(1) and 181(a)(1). Ozone
nonattainment areas are classified based on the severity of their ozone
levels (as determined based on the area's ``design value,'' which
represents the most recent three years of monitored air quality in an
area). The CAA-established classifications for ozone nonattainment
areas are: Marginal, Moderate, Serious, Severe, and Extreme.\1\
Nonattainment areas with a ``lower'' classification have ozone levels
that are closer to the standard than areas with a ``higher''
classification.\2\ As such, ozone nonattainment areas with lower
classification levels have fewer and less stringent mandatory air
quality planning and control requirements than those having higher
classifications. For each higher ozone nonattainment classification, a
state needs to comply with all requirements applicable to the next
classification, plus additional emissions controls and more expansive

nonattainment new source review offset requirements. In addition to
nonattainment requirements, the CAA sets out additional specific
requirements for states in an established ozone transport region (OTR),
regardless of their ozone attainment designation.\3\ These separate OTR
requirements mandate that states in the OTR enact enhanced vehicle I/M
programs, based on population of metropolitan areas of the state--but
not nonattainment designation.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ CAA section 181(a)(1).
    \2\ See 40 CFR 51.1103 for the design value thresholds for each
classification for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
    \3\ CAA section 184 details specific requirements for states
(and the District of Columbia) that make up the Northeast OTR.
States in an OTR are required to submit Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT) SIP revisions and mandate a certain level of
emissions control for the pollutants that form ozone, even if the
areas in the state meet the ozone standards.
    \4\ CAA section 184(b)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under the 2008 ozone NAAQS requirements, Maryland is required to
implement a basic I/M program for light-duty motor vehicles in the
Baltimore moderate ozone nonattainment area (consisting of Anne
Arundel, Baltimore, Carroll, Harford, and Howard Counties and the City
of Baltimore). However, due to higher ozone nonattainment
classifications (under prior ozone NAAQS) and Maryland's inclusion in
the OTR, Maryland currently operates an enhanced I/M program (known in
Maryland as the Vehicle Emissions Inspection program, or VEIP) in all
I/M-subject regions of the state--including the Baltimore ozone
nonattainment area. Maryland's enhanced I/M VEIP program tests
gasoline-fueled motor vehicles up to 26,000 pounds gross vehicle weight
rating (GVWR), with onboard diagnostic (OBD) testing required for model
year 1996 and newer passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks and model
year 2008 and newer heavy-duty vehicles up to 14,000 pounds GVWR. VEIP
also includes a tailpipe idle and a gas cap test, as well as a catalyst
check, for model year 1977 and newer heavy-duty vehicles between 8,500
and 26,000 pounds (that are not otherwise subject to OBD testing).
    EPA requirements for I/M programs are set forth in EPA's Inspection
and Maintenance Program Requirements Rule (or I/M rule), codified in
the Code of Federal Regulations, at 40 CFR part 51, subpart S.
Requirements for minimum performance of enhanced I/M programs are
established in 40 CFR 51.351 and those of a basic I/M programs are set
forth in 40 CFR 51.352. EPA's I/M rule delineates more stringent
transient tailpipe testing methods and tighter testing limits (or
equivalent) and on-road testing for enhanced I/M programs, as well as
vehicle evaporative system functional testing (or equivalent).

II. Summary of Maryland's SIP Revision and EPA's Evaluation of the SIP
Revision

    Maryland's enhanced I/M program under the 1990 CAA was first
approved by EPA into the Maryland SIP via a final conditional approval
published in the July 31, 1997 Federal Register (62 FR 40938). Upon
remedy of deficiencies underlying that conditional approval action, EPA
converted the conditional approval to a final approval via a final rule
published in the October 29, 1999 Federal Register (64 FR 58340).
Maryland has since made several modifications to its enhanced I/M
program to accommodate CAA requirements and changing state interests,
to update testing methods to reflect changes in vehicle technology--
such as implementation of OBD testing. As part of the OTR, Maryland is
required to implement an enhanced I/M program in specific areas, as
required by CAA section 184(b)(1).
    Maryland submitted a SIP revision on March 15, 2018 to attest and
to certify that its existing enhanced I/M program meets requirements
established by EPA's I/M rule for a basic I/M program. Maryland also
demonstrates, through use of EPA's Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator
(MOVES), that the VEIP enhanced I/M program will outperform a basic I/M
program in reducing ozone precursor emissions (i.e., nitrogen oxides
(NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs)). Maryland used
MOVES version 2014a to model both the current Baltimore area VEIP
enhanced I/M program and the EPA basic performance standard \5\ that
applies to areas newly designated nonattainment under the 2008 ozone
NAAQS. The MDE evaluated the benefits of the existing enhanced VEIP
program in Baltimore against a hypothetical basic program for a 2012
evaluation date (which corresponds to the date of classification of
Baltimore as a Serious area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, under Subpart 2
of Part D of the CAA) and again with a 2018 evaluation date (which
corresponds to the Baltimore 2008 ozone NAAQS attainment deadline, six
years after EPA classification under the 2008 ozone NAAQS). The results
of this MOVES model comparison between the existing enhanced I/M VEIP
program and EPA's basic performance standard are summarized in Table 1.
Maryland found that for both the 2012 and 2018 evaluation years,
modelled emissions were shown to be higher than the existing VEIP I/M
program for both NOX and VOC, as well as combined
NOX and VOC, for the Baltimore nonattainment area under
EPA's basic performance standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ As defined at 40 CFR 51.352(e), entitled ``Basic performance
standard for areas designated non-attainment for the 8-hour ozone
standard,'' promulgated by EPA on April 7, 2006 (71 FR 17705). This
action revised the I/M rule specifically to update I/M program
submission and implementation requirements for areas potentially
newly subject to I/M requirements as a result of being designated
and classified under the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

 Table 1--Comparison Between MOVES2014a Modelled Emissions of Maryland's Enhanced VEIP I/M Program Versus EPA's
           Basic I/M Performance Standard for the Baltimore Nonattainment Area, in Tons Per Day (tpd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                VOC + NOX
                                                                     VOC (tpd)       NOX (tpd)         (tpd)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012 Evaluation date scenario:
    Basic I/M Performance Standard for Baltimore Area...........           39.94           95.97          135.91
    Existing VEIP I/M Program for Baltimore Area................          38.063          92.977          131.04
    Difference between Basic Performance Standard and Existing              1.88            2.99            4.87
     VEIP Program...............................................
2018 Evaluation date scenario:
    Basic I/M Performance Standard for Baltimore Area...........          25.884          52.214          78.098
    Existing VEIP I/M Program for Baltimore Area................          25.153          50.738          75.891
    Difference between Basic Performance Standard and Existing             0.731           1.476           2.207
     VEIP Program...............................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Maryland has shown that by previously enacting a high enhanced I/M
program in the Baltimore area to meet I/M requirements for the prior 1-
hour severe ozone NAAQS (as well as separate enhanced I/M requirements
applicable in the OTR), the existing VEIP program satisfies basic I/M
requirements applicable because Baltimore was subsequently designated
moderate nonattainment under the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Under the CAA
I/M framework, enhanced I/M programs are more stringent than basic
programs, and exceed EPA established program requirements for testing,
administration, and oversight applicable to basic I/M programs.

III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the motor vehicle emissions I/M program
certification submitted by Maryland on March 15, 2018 for the Baltimore
2008 ozone nonattainment area to satisfy the applicable CAA
requirements to enact a basic I/M program.
    EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this
document or on other relevant matters. These comments will be
considered before taking final action. Interested parties may submit
written comments to this proposed rulemaking by following the
instructions listed in the ADDRESSES section of this Federal Register.

IV. 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 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);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted 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 (Public Law 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, this proposed rule to approve Maryland's certification
that it meets CAA applicable requirements for a basic I/M program in
the Baltimore area does not have tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP
is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and
EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen Dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: March 5, 2019.
Cosmo Servidio,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2019-04771 Filed 3-18-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 81 (Thursday, April 26, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24947-24948]
[FR Doc No: 2012-10072]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12756-003--Louisiana; Red River Lock & Dam No. 3
Hydroelectric Project]

BOST3 Hydroelectric LLC; Notice of Proposed Restricted Service
List for a Programmatic Agreement

    Rule 2010 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's
(Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR section 385.2010,
provides that, to eliminate unnecessary expense or improve
administrative efficiency, the Secretary may establish a restricted
service list for a particular phase or issue in a proceeding. The
restricted service list should contain the names of persons on the
service list who, in the judgment of the decisional authority
establishing the list, are active participants with respect to the
phase or issue in the proceeding for which the list is established.
    The Commission staff is consulting with the Louisiana State
Historic Preservation Officer (Louisiana SHPO) and the Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation (Advisory Council) pursuant to the Advisory
Council's regulations, 36 CFR part 800, implementing section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, (16 U.S.C. 470f), to
prepare and execute a programmatic agreement for managing properties
included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of
Historic Places that could be affected by issuance of a license for the
proposed Red River Lock & Dam No. 3 Hydroelectric Project No. 12756.
    The programmatic agreement, when executed by the Commission and the
Louisiana SHPO, would satisfy the Commission's section 106
responsibilities for all individual undertakings carried out in
accordance with the license until the license expires or is terminated
(36 CFR 800.13e). The Commission's responsibilities pursuant to section
106 for the proposed project would be fulfilled through the
programmatic agreement, which staff proposes to draft in consultation
with certain parties listed below.
    BOST3 Hydroelectric LLC, as applicant for the proposed Red River
Lock & Dam No. 3 Project No. 12756, is invited to participate in
consultations to develop the programmatic agreement. For purposes of
commenting on the programmatic agreement, staff proposes to restrict
the service list for the aforementioned project as follows:

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Eddins, Advisory Council on         Douglas A. Spalding, Nelson
 Historic Preservation, The Old Post      Energy, LLC, Agent for BOST3
 Office Building, Suite 803, 1100         Hydroelectric LLC, 8441
 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington,     Wayzata Blvd., Suite 101,
 DC 20004.                                Golden Valley, MN 55426.
Pam Breaux, SHPO, Louisiana Department   Dr. Linda Langley, Coushatta
 of Culture, Recreation & Tourism, P.O.   Tribe of Louisiana, P.O. Box
 Box 44247, Baton Rouge, LA 70804.        818, Elton, LA 70532.
Rachel Watson or Representative,         Andrew Tomlinson or
 Louisiana Department of Culture,         Representative, U.S. Army
 Recreation & Tourism, P.O. Box 44247,    Corps of Engineers, 4155 Clay
 Baton Rouge, LA 70804.                   Street, Room 230, Vicksburg,
                                          MS 39183.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any person on the official service list for the above-captioned
proceeding may request inclusion on the restricted service list, or may
request that a restricted service list not be established, by filing a
motion to that effect within 15 days of this notice date. In a request
for inclusion, please identify the reason or reasons why there is an
interest to be included. Also please identify any concerns about
historic properties, including traditional cultural properties. If
historic properties are identified within the motion, please use a
separate page, and label it Non-Public Information.
    Any such motions may be filed electronically via the Internet. See
18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site (http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ferconline.asp) under the
``eFiling'' link. For a simpler method of submitting text only comments
click on ``Quick Comment.'' For assistance, please contact FERC Online
Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>call toll-free at (866) 208-
3676; or, for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the Commission
strongly encourages electronic filing, documents may also be paper-
filed. To paper-file, mail an original and seven copies to: Kimberly D.
Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street
NE., Washington, DC 20426. Please put the project number (P-12756-003)
on the first page of the filing.
    If no such motions are filed, the restricted service list will be
effective at the end of the 15-day period. Otherwise, a further notice
will be issued ruling on any motion or motions filed within the 15-day
period.

    Dated: April 19, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-10072 Filed 4-25-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register: March 25, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 56)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 12778-12781]
[DOCID:fr25mr09-54]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0595; FRL-8780-7]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
District of Columbia; Reasonably Available Control Technology Under the
8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the District of Columbia. This SIP revision
consists of a demonstration that the District of Columbia meets the
requirements of reasonably available control technology (RACT) for
nitrogen oxides (NOX) and volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
set forth by the Clean Air Act (CAA). This SIP revision demonstrates
that all requirements for RACT are met either through: certification
that previously adopted RACT controls in the District of Columbia's SIP
that were approved by EPA under the 1-hour ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standard (NAAQS) are based on the currently available
technically and economically feasible controls, and that they continue
to represent RACT for the 8-hour implementation purposes; and a
negative declaration demonstrating that no facilities exist in the
District of Columbia for the applicable control technology guideline
(CTG) categories. This action is being taken under the CAA.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before April 24, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2008-0595 by one of the following methods:
    A. http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    B. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0595, Cristina Fernandez, Chief, Air
Quality Planning Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2008-0595. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without
going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., 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 electronically in http://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the
Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the
State submittal are available at the District of Columbia Department of
the Environment, 51 N Street, NE., 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick J. Egan,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Ozone is formed in the atmosphere by photochemical reactions
between VOC, NOX, and carbon monoxide (CO) in the presence
of sunlight. In order to reduce ozone concentrations in the ambient
air, the CAA requires all nonattainment areas to apply controls on VOC/
NOX emission sources to achieve emission reductions.
    Since the 1970's, EPA has consistently interpreted RACT to mean the
lowest emission limit that a particular source is capable of meeting by
the application of the control technology that is reasonably available
considering technological and economic feasibility. See, e.g., 72 FR
20586 at 20610 (April 25, 2007). Section 182 of the CAA sets forth two
separate RACT requirements for ozone nonattainment areas. The first
requirement, contained in section 182(a)(2)(A) of the CAA, and referred
to as RACT fix-up, requires the correction of RACT rules for which EPA
identified deficiencies before the CAA was amended in 1990. On August
4, 1992 (57 FR 34250), EPA published a final rulemaking notice
approving the District of Columbia's SIP revision in order to correct
the District's VOC RACT regulations and establish and require the
implementation of revised SIP regulations to control VOCs.
    The second requirement, set forth in section 182(b)(2) of the CAA,
applies to moderate (or worse) ozone nonattainment areas and attainment
areas in the ozone transport region (OTR) established pursuant to
section 184 of the CAA. These areas are required to implement RACT
controls on all major VOC and NOX emission sources and on
all sources and source categories covered by a CTG issued by EPA. On
October 27, 1999 (64 FR 57777), EPA published a final rulemaking notice
approving the District of Columbia's SIP revision as meeting the CTG
RACT provisions of the CAA. Further details of The District of
Columbia's RACT requirements can be found in a Technical Support
Document (TSD) prepared for this rulemaking.
    The Washington 1-hour Area had certain RACT requirements under
section 182 for VOC and NOX. Section 182(b)(2) of the CAA
required the District of Columbia to implement RACT on all sources and
source categories covered by a CTG issued by EPA. Point sources with
the potential to emit 50 tons per year or more of VOCs or 100 tons per
year or more of NOX that were not covered by a CTG were also
required to implement RACT. As a result of failure to meet the
attainment date of November 15, 1999, the Metropolitan Washington area
was reclassified from serious to severe nonattainment area for the 1-
hour standard (68 FR 3410, January 24, 2003). As a result of the
reclassification, the District of Columbia was required to perform RACT
evaluations on point sources with the potential to emit 25 tons per
year for either VOC or NOX (69 FR 77647, December 28, 2004).
    Under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, the District of Columbia was
originally classified as part of the Metropolitan Washington serious 1-
hour ozone nonattainment area (Washington 1-hour Area) (56 FR 56694 at
56844, November 6, 1991). The Washington 1-hour Area is also part of
the OTR. The OTR is established by section 184 of the CAA. Areas in the
OTR are subject to OTR-specific RACT requirements. Section 184(b)(1)(B)
of the CAA, requires the implementation of RACT with respect to all
sources of VOC covered by a CTG. Additionally, section 184(b)(2) of the
CAA, requires the implementation of major stationary source
requirements as if the area were a moderate nonattainment area on any
stationary source with a potential to emit of at least 50 tons per year
of VOC or 100 tons per year of NOX. However, the Washington
1-hour Area satisfies the section 184 RACT requirements because section
182 requirements are more stringent as a result of reclassification to
a severe nonattainment area for the 1-hour standard; therefore, no
additional measures for the implementation of RACT are applicable (68
FR at 3425, January 24, 2003).
    Under the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, the Washington 1-hr Area, with the
exception of Stafford County, Virginia was designated and classified as
a moderate nonattainment area, and is therefore subject to the CAA RACT
requirements in section 182(b) (69 FR 23858, April 30, 2004). The
District of Columbia is required to submit to EPA a SIP revision that
demonstrates how the District meets the RACT requirements under the 8-
hour ozone standard.
    EPA requires under the 8-hour ozone NAAQS that states meet the CAA
RACT requirements, either through a certification that previously
adopted RACT controls in their SIP approved by EPA under the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS represent adequate RACT control levels for 8-hour
attainment purposes, or through the establishment of new or more
stringent requirements that represent RACT control levels. See, Final
Rule To Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standard--Phase 2; Final Rule To Implement Certain Aspects of the 1990
Amendments Relating to New Source Review and Prevention of Significant
Deterioration as They Apply in Carbon Monoxide, Particulate Matter and
Ozone NAAQS; Final Rule for Reformulated Gasoline (Phase 2 Rule) 70 FR
71612, 71655, November 29, 2005. Sections 172(c)(1) and 182(b)(2) of
the CAA require that all SIPs satisfy the NOX and VOCs RACT
requirements that apply in areas that have not attained the NAAQS for
ozone. See 42 U.S.C. 7502(c)(1), 42 U.S.C. 7511a(b)(2), and 42 U.S.C.
7511a(f). EPA has determined that States that have RACT provisions
approved in their SIPs for 1-hour ozone nonattainment areas have
several options for fulfilling the RACT requirements for the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. If a State meets certain conditions, it may certify that
previously adopted 1-hour ozone RACT controls in the SIP continue to
represent RACT control levels for purposes of fulfilling 8-hour ozone
RACT requirements. Alternatively, a State may establish new or more
stringent requirements that represent RACT control levels, either in
lieu of or in conjunction with a certification.
    As set forth in the preamble to the Phase 2 Rule, a certification
must be accompanied by appropriate supporting information such as
consideration of information received during the public comment period
and consideration of new data (70 FR at 71655). This information may
supplement existing RACT guidance documents that were developed for the
1-hour standard, such that the State's SIP accurately reflects RACT for
the 8-hour ozone standard based on the current availability of
technically and economically feasible controls. Establishment of new
RACT requirements will occur when states have new stationary sources
not covered by existing RACT regulations, or when new data or technical
information indicates that a previously adopted RACT measure does not
represent a newly available RACT control level. Another 8-hour ozone
NAAQS requirement for RACT is to submit a negative declaration if there
are no CTG sources or major sources of VOC and NOX emissions
in lieu of or in addition to a certification.

II. Summary of SIP Revision

    On September 22, 2008, the District of Columbia Department of
Environment (DDOE) submitted a revision to its SIP that addresses the
requirements of RACT under the 8-hour ozone NAAQS set forth by the CAA.
The District of Columbia's SIP revision is consistent with the process
in the Phase 2 Rule preamble, and satisfies the requirements

of RACT set forth by the CAA under the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The District
of Columbia's SIP revision satisfies the 8-hour RACT requirements
through a certification that previously adopted RACT controls in the
District of Columbia's SIP that were approved by EPA under the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS are based on the currently available technically and
economically feasible controls, and continues to represent RACT for the
8-hour implementation purposes and a negative declaration that no CTG
or non-CTG facilities exist in the District of Columbia.

A. VOC CTG RACT Controls

    The District of Columbia's Regulations and Statues, under Title 20
District of Columbia Municipal Regulations (DCMR) Chapter 7, contain
the District of Columbia's CTG VOC RACT controls that were implemented
and approved in the District SIP under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS. Although
Alternate Control Techniques (ACTs) are not regulatory documents and
have no legal effect on state regulations, EPA requires that states
verify that ACTs have been considered in the RACT program development
process. Therefore, DDOE included ACTs in their certification of
applicable RACT requirements in the submittal. Table 1 lists District
of Columbia's VOC RACT controls, which the District of Columbia is
certifying as meeting the 8-hour RACT requirements.

                          Table 1--District of Columbia's CTG and ACT VOC RACT Controls
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Existing stationary sources--40 CFR 52.2420(c)
                              ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    DCMR Title 20 section                                                  Federal Register
                                Title of regulation     State effective      date for SIP          Citation
                                                             date              approval
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
716..........................  Offset Lithography...             10/2/98            10/27/99  64 FR 57777
704..........................  Stage I Vapor                     3/15/85            10/27/99  64 FR 57777
                                Recovery.
708 and 742-748..............  Solvent Cleaning                  3/15/85          10/27/99 &  64 FR 57777 &
                                Degreasing.                                       12/29/2004  69 FR 77906
718..........................  Paint--Spray Booth...            11/26/04            12/23/04  69 FR 76855
706..........................  Petroleum Dry                     3/15/85            10/27/99  64 FR 57777
                                Cleaners.
709.1........................  Cutback Asphalt......             3/15/85            10/27/99  64 FR 57777
704.4........................  Leaks from Gasoline               3/15/85            10/27/99  64 FR 57777
                                Tank Trucks and
                                Vapor Collection
                                Systems.
710, Appendix 7-1............  Engraving and Plate               3/15/85            10/27/99  64 FR 57777
                                Printing.
705.4-705.14.................  Stage II Gasoline                 3/15/85            10/27/99  64 FR 57777
                                Vapor Recovery.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DDOE also submitted a negative declaration certifying that the
following VOC CTG sources do not exist in the District of Columbia and
therefore there is no need for the District of Columbia to adopt CTGs
for these sources. Table 2 lists VOC CTG sources in the District of
Columbia's negative declaration.

Table 2--VOC CTG Sources for Which No Applicable Facilities Exist in the
                          District of Columbia
------------------------------------------------------------------------

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Automobile and light-duty truck manufacturing.
Coating of cans, coils, paper, fabric and vinyl, metal furniture, large
 appliances, magnet wire, miscellaneous metal parts and products and
 flatwood paneling.
Storage of petroleum liquids in fixed-roof tanks.
Bulk gasoline plants.
Petroleum refinery sources.
Manufacture of synthesized pharmaceutical products, pneumatic rubber
 tires, vegetable oil, synthetic organic chemicals (fugitive VOCs and
 air oxidation) and high density polyethylene, polypropylene and
 polystyrene resins.
Graphic arts systems.
Storage, transportation and marketing of VOCs (fugitive VOCs from oil
 and gas production and natural gas and gasoline processing).
Aerospace.
Shipbuilding and repair.
Distillation or reactor or batch processes in the synthetic organic
 chemical manufacturing industry.
Wood furniture coatings.
Storage of petroleum liquids in external floating-roof tanks.
Bulk gasoline terminals.
Petroleum refinery equipment leaks.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. NOX RACT Controls

    The District of Columbia's Regulations and Statutes under Title 20
DCMR Chapter 8, Section 805 contains the District of Columbia's
NOX RACT controls that were implemented and approved into
the District's SIP under the 1-hour ozone SIP. Table 3 lists the
District of Columbia's NOX RACT controls.

                                Table 3--District of Columbia's NOX RACT Controls
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Federal Register
      DCMR Title 20 section         Title of regulation      State effective      date for SIP        Citation
                                                                  date              approval
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
805.1, 805.5....................  Fuel-burning equipment              4/16/04            12/28/04  69 FR 77645
                                   with an input capacity
                                   of 100 MM Btu/hr or
                                   greater.
805.5, 805.8....................  Fuel-burning equipment              4/16/04            12/28/04  69 FR 77645
                                   with an input capacity
                                   equal to or greater
                                   than 20MM/Btu/hr, but
                                   less than 50 MM Btu/hr.
805.1, 805.5....................  Fuel-burning equipment              4/16/04            12/28/04  69 FR 77645
                                   with an input capacity
                                   equal to or greater
                                   than 50 MM/Btu/hr, but
                                   less than 100 MM Btu.
805.4...........................  Combustion turbine with             4/16/04            12/28/04  69 FR 77645
                                   an input capacity
                                   equal to or greater
                                   than 100 MM.
805.1, 709.1....................  Asphalt concrete plant              4/16/04            12/28/04  69 FR 77645
                                   with a potential to
                                   emit (PTE) 25 tons per
                                   year or greater.
805.1...........................  All other fuel burning              4/16/04            12/28/04  69 FR 77645
                                   equipment with a PTE
                                   25 tons per year of
                                   NOX or greater.
805.1...........................  Stationary Internal                 4/16/04            12/28/04  69 FR 77645
                                   Combustion Engines.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The District of Columbia has adopted the NOX SIP Call
trading program. The PEPCO-Benning Road Generating Station and GSA
facilities in the District of Columbia subject to the NOX
SIP Call may be recertified as meeting NOX RACT requirements
based on the Phase 2 Rule and source-specific RACT controls, as well as
their compliance with the NOX Budget Trading Program. See
Phase 2 Rule, 70 FR 71617, 71652, November 29, 2005.
    The District of Columbia SIP revision certifies that no new or
revised NOX and VOC requirements have been adopted since the
applicability threshold of 25 tons per year for major sources represent
current RACT control level under the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.

III. Proposed Action

    EPA is proposing to approve the District of Columbia SIP revision
that addresses the requirements of RACT under the 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
The District of Columbia's SIP revision was submitted on September 22,
2008. This SIP revision is based on a certification that previously
adopted RACT controls in the District of Columbia's SIP that were
approved by EPA under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS are based on the currently
available technically and economically feasible controls, and that they
continue to represent RACT for the 8-hour implementation purposes, and
a negative declaration demonstrating that no facilities exist in the
District of Columbia for the applicable CTG categories. EPA is
soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document.
These comments will be considered before taking final action.

IV. 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 Clean Air Act. Accordingly,
this action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the 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, this proposed rule, pertaining to the District of
Columbia RACT under the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, does not have tribal
implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian
country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide,
Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.

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

    Dated: February 24, 2009.
William T. Wisniewski,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. E9-6593 Filed 3-24-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 238 (Monday, December 12, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 77119-77121]
[FR Doc No: 2011-31593]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket No. USCG-2011-1083]
RIN 1625-AA08

Special Local Regulations; Pompano Beach Holiday Boat Parade,
Intracoastal Waterway, Pompano Beach, FL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing special local regulations on
the waters of the Intracoastal Waterway in Pompano Beach, Florida
during the Pompano Beach Holiday Boat Parade on Sunday, December 11,
2011. The marine parade will consist of approximately 50 vessels. The
marine parade will begin at Lake Santa Barbara, transit north on the
Intracoastal Waterway, and end at the Hillsborough Bridge. These
special local regulations are necessary to provide for the safety of
life on navigable waters of the United States during the marine parade.
The special local regulations consist of a series of moving buffer
zones around participant vessels as they transit from Lake Santa
Barbara to the Hillsborough Bridge. Persons and vessels that are not
participating in the marine parade are prohibited from entering,
transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within any of the buffer
zones unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Miami or a
designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 5 p.m. until 10 p.m. on December 11,
2011.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2011-1083 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2011-1083 in the
``Keyword'' box, and then clicking ``Search.'' They are also available
for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30),
U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary final rule, call or email Lieutenant Jennifer S. Makowski,
Sector Miami Prevention Department, Coast Guard; telephone (305) 535-
8724, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on
viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket
Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because the Coast Guard did not receive
necessary information about this year's Pompano Beach Holiday Boat
Parade with sufficient time to publish an NPRM and to receive public
comments prior to the event. Any delay in the effective date of this
rule would be contrary to the public interest because immediate action
is needed to minimize potential danger to marine parade participants,
participant vessels, spectators, and the general public.
    For the same reason discussed above, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) the
Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective
less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.

Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis for the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to
establish special local regulations: 33 U.S.C. 1233.
    The purpose of the rule is to insure safety of life on navigable
waters of the United States during the Pompano Beach Holiday Boat
Parade.

Discussion of Rule

    On December 11, 2011, Greater Pompano Beach Chamber of Commerce is
hosting the Pompano Beach Holiday Boat Parade on the Intracoastal
Waterway in Pompano Beach, Florida. The marine parade will consist of
approximately 50 vessels. The marine parade will begin at Lake Santa
Barbara, transit north on the Intracoastal Waterway, and end at the
Hillsborough Bridge. Although this event occurs annually, and special
local regulations have been promulgated in the Code of Federal
Regulations at 33 CFR 100.701, the date of the marine parade does not
correspond with the date published in the Code of Federal Regulations,
and the special local regulations have been modified. Therefore, the
special local regulations set forth in 33 CFR 100.701 are inapplicable
for this year's Pompano Beach Holiday Boat Parade.
    The special local regulations consist of a series of buffer zones
around vessels participating in the Pompano Beach Holiday Boat Parade.
These buffer zones are as follows: (1) All waters within 75 yards of
the lead marine parade vessel; (2) all waters within 75 yards of the
last marine parade vessel; and (3) all waters within 50 yards of all
other marine parade vessels. Notice of the special local regulations,
including the identities of the lead marine parade vessel and the last
marine parade vessel, will be provided prior to the marine parade by
Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners. These
special local regulations will be enforced from 5 p.m. until 10 p.m. on
December 11, 2011. Persons and vessels are prohibited from entering,
transiting

through, anchoring, or remaining within the buffer zones unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port Miami or a designated
representative. Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through,
anchor in, or remain within any of the buffer zones may contact the
Captain of the Port Miami by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or a
designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16, to request
authorization. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in,
or remain within any of the buffer zones is granted by the Captain of
the Port Miami or a designated representative, all persons and vessels
receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the
Captain of the Port Miami or a designated representative.

Regulatory Analyses

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

Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,
and 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, direct agencies to assess
the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public
health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive
Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and
benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting
flexibility. This rule has not been designated a significant regulatory
action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the
Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed this regulation under
Executive Order 12866.
    The economic impact of this rule is not significant for the
following reasons: (1) The special local regulations will be enforced
for only five hours; (2) although persons and vessels will not be able
to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the buffer zones
without authorization from the Captain of the Port Miami or a
designated representative, they may operate in the surrounding area
during the enforcement period; (3) persons and vessels may still enter,
transit through, anchor in, or remain within the buffer zones if
authorized by the Captain of the Port Miami or a designated
representative; and (4) the Coast Guard will provide advance
notification of the special local regulations to the local maritime
community by Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. This rule may affect the following entities, some of which
may be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to
enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within that portion of the
Intracoastal Waterway encompassed within the special local regulations
from 5 p.m. until 10 p.m. on December 11, 2011. For the reasons
discussed in the Regulatory Planning and Review section above, this
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.

Assistance for Small Entities

    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offer to assist small
entities in understanding the rule so that they can better evaluate its
effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-(888) 734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

Collection of Information

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

Federalism

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

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

Taking of Private Property

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

Civil Justice Reform

    This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2)
of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation,
eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden.

Protection of Children

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

Indian Tribal Governments

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

Energy Effects

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

Technical Standards

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

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(h), of
the Instruction. This rule involves special local regulations issued in
conjunction with a marine parade. Under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(h),
of the Instruction, an environmental analysis checklist and a
categorical exclusion determination are not required for this rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 100 as follows:

PART 100--SAFETY OF LIFE ON NAVIGABLE WATERS

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

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1233.

0
2. Add temporary Sec.  100.35T07-1083 to read as follows:

Sec.  100.35T07-1083  Special Local Regulations; Pompano Beach Holiday
Boat Parade, Intracoastal Waterway, Pompano Beach, FL.

    (a) Regulated Areas. The following buffer zones are regulated areas
during the Pompano Beach Holiday Boat Parade: All waters within 75
yards of the lead marine parade vessel; all waters within 75 yards of
the last marine parade vessel; and all waters within 50 yards of all
other marine parade vessels. The identities of the lead marine parade
vessel and the last marine parade vessel will be provided prior to the
marine parade by Local Notice to Mariners and Broadcast Notice to
Mariners. The marine parade will begin at Lake Santa Barbara, transit
north on the Intracoastal Waterway, and end at the Hillsborough Bridge.
    (b) Definition. The term ``designated representative'' means Coast
Guard Patrol Commanders, including Coast Guard coxswains, petty
officers, and other officers operating Coast Guard vessels, and
Federal, state, and local officers designated by or assisting the
Captain of the Port Miami in the enforcement of the regulated areas.
    (c) Regulations.
    (1) All persons and vessels are prohibited from entering,
transiting through, anchoring in, or remaining within the regulated
areas unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Miami or a
designated representative.
    (2) Persons and vessels desiring to enter, transit through, anchor
in, or remain within the regulated areas may contact the Captain of the
Port Miami by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>, or a designated
representative via VHF radio on channel 16, to request authorization.
If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within
the regulated areas is granted by the Captain of the Port Miami or a
designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such
authorization must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the
Port Miami or a designated representative.
    (3) The Coast Guard will provide notice of the regulated areas by
Local Notice to Mariners, Broadcast Notice to Mariners, and on-scene
designated representatives.
    (d) Enforcement Date. This rule will be enforced from 5 p.m. until
10 p.m. on December 11, 2011.

    Dated: November 22, 2011.
C.P. Scraba,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Miami.
[FR Doc. 2011-31593 Filed 12-9-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P