[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 115 (Thursday, June 15, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 39179-39182]
[FR Doc No: 2023-12634]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2020-0425; FRL-10618-02-R9]

Disapproval of Clean Air Plans; Sacramento Metro, California;
Contingency Measures for 2008 Ozone Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final
action to disapprove under the Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act''), state
implementation plan (SIP) submissions from the State of California that
address contingency measures requirements for the 2008 ozone national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) in the Sacramento Metro,
California ozone nonattainment area. The EPA is finalizing this
disapproval because the SIP submissions do not provide for contingency
measures that would be triggered if the area fails to attain the NAAQS
or make reasonable further progress (RFP).

DATES: This rule is effective on July 17, 2023.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2020-0425. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g.,
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available through https://www.regulations.gov, or please
contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section for additional availability information. If you need assistance
in a language other than English or if you are a person with a
disability who needs a reasonable accommodation at no cost to you,
please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laura Lawrence, EPA Region IX, (415)
972-3407, [email protected].

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

Table of Contents

I. Summary of Proposed Action
    A. Regulatory Background
    B. State Submissions and Previous EPA Actions
    C. Contingency Measures Requirements
II. Public Comments
III. Final Action and Clean Air Act Consequences
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Summary of Proposed Action

A. Regulatory Background

    On March 28, 2023, the EPA proposed to disapprove under the CAA,
SIP submissions from the State of California that address the
contingency measures requirements for the 2008 ozone NAAQS for the
Sacramento Metro, California ozone nonattainment area.\1\ This proposed
disapproval addressed the contingency measures portions of the
following two SIP submissions: the ``Sacramento Regional 2008 NAAQS 8-
hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable

Further Progress Plan,'' submitted in 2017 (``2017 Sacramento Regional
Ozone Plan''), and the Sacramento Metro portion of the ``2018 Updates
to the California State Implementation Plan,'' submitted in 2018
(``2018 SIP Update''). In this same rulemaking, we also proposed to
make a protective finding for the Sacramento Metro area under the
transportation conformity rule.\2\ The Sacramento Metro ozone
nonattainment area consists of Sacramento and Yolo counties, and
portions of El Dorado, Placer, Solano, and Sutter counties, and is
regulated by the California Air Resources Board (CARB or ``State'') and
five local air districts (``Districts'').\3\ The area has a
classification of ``Severe-15'' for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, with an
attainment date of December 31, 2024. Accordingly, the area is subject
to the requirements for Severe ozone nonattainment areas, including the
requirement to submit contingency measures consistent with CAA
172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9), as discussed further in Section I.C of this
document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 88 FR 18286.
    \2\ Id. at 18289. For an explanation of the consequences of a
protective finding under the transportation conformity rule, see
footnote 19 in Section III of this document.
    \3\ The five local air districts with jurisdiction in the area
are the El Dorado County Air Quality Management District (EDCAQMD),
the Feather River Air Quality Management District (FRAQMD), the
Placer County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD), the
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD),
and the Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District (YSAQMD).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our proposed action includes additional information about ozone and
its precursor emissions, the Sacramento Metro nonattainment area, and
the CAA regulatory framework for ozone nonattainment areas, including
submittal requirements established in the EPA's SIP Requirements Rule
for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 88 FR 18286, 18287-18289.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. State Submissions and Previous EPA Actions

    CARB submitted the 2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan to the EPA
as a revision to the California SIP on December 18, 2017,\5\ and
submitted the 2018 SIP Update to the EPA as a revision to the
California SIP on December 11, 2018.\6\ The 2018 SIP Update provides
updates to prior SIP submittals for eight California nonattainment
areas, including the Sacramento Metro area, in response to the decision
by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (``Ninth Circuit'')
in Bahr v. EPA.\7\ Both submittals address nonattainment area
requirements for the Sacramento Metro area concerning the 2008 ozone
NAAQS, including the contingency measures requirements.\8\ In 2020,
CARB \9\ and the Districts \10\ committed to supplement the contingency
measures elements in the 2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan and the
2018 SIP Update by adopting and submitting, within 12 months of a final
conditional approval of the contingency measures element, additional
contingency measures that would be triggered upon the area's failure to
attain or to meet RFP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Letter dated December 18, 2017, from Richard Corey,
Executive Officer, CARB, to Alexis Strauss, Acting Regional
Administrator, EPA Region IX.
    \6\ Letter dated December 5, 2018, from Richard Corey, Executive
Officer, CARB, to Mike Stoker, Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX
(submitted electronically December 11, 2018).
    \7\ Bahr v. EPA, 836 F.3d 1218 (9th Cir. 2016). In this case,
the court rejected the EPA's longstanding interpretation of CAA
section 172(c)(9) as allowing for early implementation of
contingency measures. The court concluded that a contingency measure
must take effect at the time the area fails to make RFP or attain by
the applicable attainment date, not before. See also Sierra Club v.
EPA, 985 F.3d 1055 (D.C. Cir. 2021), reaching a similar decision.
    \8\ For a more complete description of the 2017 Sacramento
Regional Ozone Plan and 2018 SIP Update as they relate to the
Sacramento Metro nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS, see 85
FR 68509, 68512 (October 29, 2020).
    \9\ Letter dated July 7, 2020, from Richard W. Corey, Executive
Officer, CARB, to John Busterud, Regional Administrator, EPA Region
IX.
    \10\ Letter dated May 26, 2020, from Alberto Ayala, Ph.D.,
M.S.E, Executive Officer/Air Pollution Control Officer, SMAQMD, Dave
Johnston, Air Pollution Control Officer, EDCAQMD, Christopher Brown,
AICP, Air Pollution Control Officer, FRAQMD, Erik White, Air
Pollution Control Officer, PCAPCD, and Mat Erhardt, P.E., Executive
Director/Air Pollution Control Officer, YSAQMD, to Richard Corey,
Executive Officer, CARB, Subject: ``Commitments from the Sacremento
Regional 2008 NAAOS 8-Hour Zone Attainment and Reasonable Further
Progress Plan.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA previously approved the 2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan
and the 2018 SIP Update as meeting the emissions inventory, attainment
demonstration, reasonable further progress, reasonable available
control measures, and motor vehicle emissions budgets requirements for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS for the Sacramento Metro nonattainment area.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 86 FR 58581 (October 22, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding the contingency measures requirements, on October 29,
2020, we proposed to conditionally approve the contingency measures
element of the 2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan and the 2018 SIP
Update, based on the commitments by the Districts and CARB to submit
the new and amended District rules to the EPA within 12 months of a
final conditional approval of the contingency measures element for the
Sacramento Metro area.\12\ On August 26, 2021, the Ninth Circuit issued
a decision in Association of Irritated Residents v. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency \13\ (``AIR v. EPA'') which remanded the EPA's
conditional approval of contingency measures for the San Joaquin Valley
nonattainment area, another nonattainment area in California. Our
proposed conditional approval of the contingency measures requirements
for the Sacramento Metro area had relied on a similar approach as the
one remanded by the court in AIR v. EPA. Based on the Ninth Circuit's
decision in AIR v. EPA, we did not finalize our proposed conditional
approval of the contingency measures element for the Sacramento Metro
area.\14\ Our March 28, 2023 proposed disapproval action \15\ replaced
our October 29, 2020 proposed conditional approval of the contingency
measures element.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 85 FR 68509.
    \13\ 10 F.4th 937 (9th Cir. 2021).
    \14\ 86 FR 58581, 58590 (responding to comments on proposed
approval of contingency measures element submitted by Air Law for
All, Ltd. on behalf of the Center for Biological Diversity and
Center for Environmental Health).
    \15\ 88 FR 18266.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our proposed disapproval action includes more information about
CARB's submittals for the 2008 ozone NAAQS and the EPA's previous
actions on these submittals.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Id. at 18288.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Contingency Measures Requirements

    Ozone nonattainment areas classified under subpart 2 of the CAA as
``Serious'' or above must include in their SIPs contingency measures
consistent with CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9). Contingency
measures are additional controls or measures to be implemented in the
event that an area fails to make RFP or to attain the NAAQS by the
attainment date. CAA section 172(c)(9) requires states with
nonattainment areas to provide for the implementation of specific
measures to be undertaken if the area fails to make RFP or to attain
the NAAQS by the applicable attainment date. Such measures must be
included in the SIP as contingency measures to take effect in any such
case without further action by the state or the EPA. Similarly, CAA
section 182(c)(9) requires states with an ozone nonattainment area
classified as Serious or above to provide contingency measures in the
event that the area fails to meet any applicable RFP milestone.
    Contingency measures must be designed so as to be implemented
prospectively; control measures that have already been implemented may
not serve as contingency measures even if they provide emissions
reductions

beyond those needed for any other CAA purpose.\17\ The SIP should
contain trigger mechanisms for the contingency measures, specify a
schedule for implementation, and indicate that the measure or measures
will be implemented without significant further action by the state or
the EPA.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Bahr v. EPA, 836 F.3d at 1235-1237 (9th Cir. 2016).
    \18\ For more information about the contingency measures
requirements, see the 1997 Ozone Phase 2 Implementation Rule at 70
FR 71612 (November 29, 2005) and the 2008 Ozone SRR at 80 FR 12264,
12285.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted in Section I.B of this document and in our proposed
action, the EPA previously proposed a conditional approval of the
contingency measures requirements for the Sacramento Metro area, based
upon commitments by the Districts and CARB to adopt and submit
additional contingency measure provisions in District rules within 12
months of the final conditional approval. Because the EPA did not
finalize the conditional approval, the Districts and CARB did not
submit the additional contingency measure provisions. Thus, the
relevant submittals before us are limited to the portions of the 2017
Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan and 2018 SIP Update that address the
contingency measures requirements for the Sacramento Metro area.
    These submittals provide only an analysis of surplus emissions, and
do not include specific measures to be triggered upon a failure to
attain or to meet an RFP milestone. As described in detail in our
proposed action, this approach is inconsistent with CAA sections
172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9), in light of the Ninth Circuit's decisions in
Bahr v. EPA and AIR v. EPA. For this reason, we are taking final action
to disapprove these portions of the 2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan
and 2018 SIP Update as contingency measures for the Sacramento Metro
area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS.

II. Public Comments

    Our proposed action provided for a 30-day comment period, during
which we received no comments.

III. Final Action and Clean Air Act Consequences

    For the reasons summarized herein and presented in more detail in
the proposed action, we are taking final action to disapprove the 2017
Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan and 2018 SIP Update with respect to CAA
contingency measures requirements under CAA sections 172(c)(9) and
182(c)(9) for the Sacramento Metro area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. We
are also making a protective finding under the transportation
conformity rule because, notwithstanding the disapproval of the
contingency measures element, the 2017 Sacramento Regional Ozone Plan,
as modified by the 2018 SIP Update, reflects adopted control measures
and contains enforceable commitments that fully satisfy the emissions
reductions requirements for RFP and attainment for the 2008 ozone
NAAQS.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 40 CFR 93.120(a)(3). Without a protective finding, this
disapproval action would result in a conformity freeze, under which
only projects in the first four years of the most recent conforming
Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) and Transportation Improvement
Programs (TIP) can proceed. Generally, during a freeze, no new RTPs,
TIPs, or RTP/TIP amendments can be found to conform until another
control strategy implementation plan revision fulfilling the same
CAA requirements is submitted, the EPA finds the motor vehicle
emissions budget(s) in the plan revision adequate pursuant to 40 CFR
93.118 or approves the submission, and conformity to the
implementation plan revision is determined. Under a protective
finding, disapproval of the contingency measures element will not
result in a transportation conformity freeze in the Sacramento Metro
ozone nonattainment area and the local metropolitan planning
organizations may continue to make transportation conformity
determinations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As a consequence of this final disapproval of the contingency
measures element, the EPA must promulgate a federal implementation plan
(FIP) under section 110(c) unless we approve subsequent SIP revisions
that correct the rule deficiencies within 24 months of the effective
date of this action. In addition, under 40 CFR 52.35, the offset
sanction in CAA section 179(b)(2) will be imposed 18 months after the
effective date of this action, and the highway funding sanction in CAA
section 179(b)(1) six months after the offset sanction is imposed. A
sanction will not be imposed if the EPA determines that a subsequent
SIP submission corrects the identified deficiencies before the
applicable deadline.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders
can be found at https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/laws-and-executive-orders.

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

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose an information collection burden under
the PRA, because this SIP disapproval does not in-and-of itself create
any new information collection burdens, but simply disapproves certain
state requirements for inclusion in the SIP.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities. This SIP
disapproval does not in-and-of itself create any new requirements but
simply disapproves certain state requirements for inclusion in the SIP.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in
UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. This action disapproves pre-existing requirements
under state or local law, and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly,
no additional costs to state, local, or tribal governments, or to the
private sector, result from this action.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

F. Executive Order 13175: Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175, because the SIP revision that the EPA is
disapproving would not apply on any Indian reservation land or in any
other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction, and will not impose substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal law. Thus, Executive Order 13175
does not apply to this action.

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

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per

the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in section 2-202 of the
Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045
because this SIP disapproval does not in-and-of itself create any new
regulations, but simply disapproves certain state requirements for
inclusion in the SIP.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is
not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    Section 12(d) of the NTTAA directs the EPA to use voluntary
consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would
be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The EPA
believes that this action is not subject to the requirements of section
12(d) of the NTTAA because application of those requirements would be
inconsistent with the CAA.

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

    Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629,
Feb. 16, 1994) directs federal agencies to identify and address
``disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects'' of their actions on minority populations and low-income
populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law.
The EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as ``the fair treatment and
meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color,
national origin, or income with respect to the development,
implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and
policies.'' The EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean
that ``no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of
environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the
negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and
commercial operations or programs and policies.''
    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to review state choices,
and approve those choices if they meet the minimum criteria of the Act.
Accordingly, this final action disapproves state law as meeting federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law.
    Neither CARB nor the Districts evaluated environmental justice
considerations as part of their SIP submittals; the CAA and applicable
implementing regulations neither prohibit nor require such an
evaluation. The EPA did not perform an environmental justice analysis
and did not consider environmental justice in this action.
Consideration of environmental justice is not required as part of this
action, and there is no information in the record inconsistent with the
stated goal of E.O. 12898 of achieving environmental justice for people
of color, low-income populations, and Indigenous peoples.

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

L. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by [August 14, 2023. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: June 7, 2023.
Martha Guzman Aceves,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart F--California

0
2. Section 52.237 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(14) to read as
follows:

Sec.  52.237  Part D disapproval.

    (a) * * *
    (14) The contingency measures element of the ``Sacramento Regional
2008 NAAQS 8-hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress
Plan,'' adopted November 16, 2017, as modified by the ``2018 Updates to
the California State Implementation Plan,'' adopted October 25, 2018,
for the Sacramento Metro area with respect to the 2008 ozone NAAQS.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2023-12634 Filed 6-14-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 127 (Friday, July 2, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38415-38417]
[FR Doc No: 2010-16118]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2010-0591]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zones; Multiple Firework Displays in Captain of the Port,
Puget Sound Area of Responsibility, WA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing multiple temporary safety
zones restricting vessel movement in the proximity of firework
discharge sites being held in the Captain of the Port, Puget Sound area
of responsibility (AOR). This action is necessary to help protect the
maritime public from the inherent dangers associated with fireworks
displays and will do so by prohibiting entry into, transit through, or
mooring within the safety zones unless authorized by the Captain of the
Port or Designated Representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 5 p.m. on July 3, 2010 until 1 a.m.
on August 7, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2010-0591 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2010-0591 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 rule, call or e-mail LTJG Wanzer, Coast Guard Sector Seattle,
Waterways Management Division; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the docket,
call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone
202-366-9826.

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 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because it is contrary to the public interest
to delay the effective date of this rule. Delaying the effective date
by first publishing an NPRM would be contrary to the safety zone's
intended objective since immediate action is needed to protect persons
and vessels against the hazards associated with fireworks displays on
navigable waters. Such hazards include premature detonations, dangerous
detonations, dangerous projectiles and falling or burning debris.
Additionally, the zone should have negligible impact on vessel transits
due to the fact that vessels will be limited from the area for a short
time and vessels can still transit in the majority of Puget Sound
during the event. Accordingly, under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast
Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing an NPRM.
    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. Due to the need for immediate
action, the restriction of vessel traffic is necessary to protect life,
property and the environment; therefore, a 30-day notice is
impracticable. Delaying the effective date would be contrary to the
safety zone's intended objectives of protecting persons and vessels
involved in the event, and enhancing public and maritime safety.

Basis and Purpose

    The U.S. Coast Guard is proposing to establish three temporary
safety zones to ensure public safety during firework shows occurring
within the Captain of the Port, Puget Sound AOR. These events may
result in a number of vessels congregating near fireworks launching
barges and sites. These safety zones are necessary to protect
watercraft and their occupants from the hazards associated with
fireworks displays. The Captain of the Port, Puget Sound may be
assisted by other Federal, State and local agencies in the enforcement
of this safety zone.
    Due to the inherent dangers associated with such displays, the
Coast Guard is taking this action to help protect the maritime public
by prohibiting entry into, transit through, or mooring within the
safety zones unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or his
Designated Representative. This temporary final rule is necessary to
protect the safety of life and property on navigable waters during
these firework events and provide the marine community information on
safety zone locations, size and length of time the zones will be
active.

Discussion of Rule

    This rule establishes three safety zones for the following firework
displays: The first will encompass waters of Boston Harbor within a 200
yard radius around position 47[deg]08.5' N, 122[deg]54.2' W and will be
enforced from 5 p.m. on July 3, 2010 until 1 a.m. on July 4, 2010; the
second will encompass waters of Boston Harbor within a 200 yard radius
around position 47[deg]08.5' N, 122[deg]54.2' W and will be enforced
from 5 p.m. on July 24, 2010 until 1 a.m. on July 25, 2010; and the
third will encompass waters near Stuart Island within a 700 yard radius
around position 48[deg]37.5' N, 121[deg]12.0' W and will be enforced
from 5 p.m. on August 6, 2010 until 1 a.m. on August 7, 2010.

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

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order. Although this rule will restrict access
to the area, the effect of the rule will not be significant because it
creates safety zones that are minimal in size and short in duration.

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 will affect the following entities, some of which
may be small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to
transit through the affected waterways during the times of enforcement.
This rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities because it creates safety zones that are
minimal in size and short in duration.

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 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

Taking of Private Property

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

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)(g), of
the Instruction. This rule involves the establishment of temporary
safety zones. An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical
exclusion determination will be available in the docket where indicated
under ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapters 701, 3306,
3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5;
Pub. L. 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of Homeland Security
Delegation No. 0170.1

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T13-148 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T13-148  Safety Zones; Multiple Firework Displays in Captain
of the Port, Puget Sound Area of Responsibility, WA

    (a) Safety Zones. The following areas are designated as safety
zones:
    (1) All waters of Boston Harbor encompassed within a 200 yard
radius around position 47[deg] 08.5'N, 122[deg] 54.2' W from 5 p.m. on
July 3, 2010 until 1 a.m. on July 4, 2010.
    (2) All waters of Boston Harbor encompassed within a 200 yard
radius around position 47[deg] 08.5' N, 122[deg] 54.2' W from 5 p.m. on
July 24, 2010 until 1 a.m. on July 25, 2010.
    (3) All waters near Stuart Island encompassed within a 700 yard
radius around position 48[deg] 37.5' N, 121[deg] 12.0' W from 5 p.m. on
August 6, 2010 until 1 a.m. on August 7, 2010.
    (b) Regulations. In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec.  165.23 of this Part, no person or vessel may enter, transit,
moor, or anchor within the safety zones created in this section unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port or his Designated Representative.
    (c) Authorization. All persons or vessels who desire to enter the
safety zones created in this section must obtain permission from the
Captain of the Port or his Designated Representative by contacting
either the on-scene patrol craft on VHF Ch 13 or Ch 16 or the Coast
Guard Sector Seattle Joint Harbor Operations Center (JHOC) via
telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    (d) Effective Period. The safety zones created in this section are
effective on the dates and times noted in paragraph (a) unless canceled
sooner by the Captain of the Port.

    Dated: June 22, 2010.
S. W. Bornemann,
Captain, U. S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Puget Sound.
[FR Doc. 2010-16118 Filed 7-1-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P