[Federal Register: May 21, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 98)]
[Notices]
[Page 28606-28607]
[DOCID:fr21my10-75]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2009-0534; FRL-9153-7]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission to OMB for
Review and Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Off-Site Waste and
Recovery Operations (Renewal), EPA ICR Number 1717.07, OMB Control
Number 2060-0313

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.), this document announces that an Information Collection
Request (ICR) has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and approval. This is a request to renew an existing
approved collection. The ICR which is abstracted below describes the
nature of the collection and the estimated burden and cost.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before June 21, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing docket ID number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2009-0534, to (1) EPA online using http://www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), or by e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Environmental Protection Agency,
Enforcement and Compliance Docket and Information Center, Mail Code
28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, and (2)
OMB at: Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), Attention: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th
Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert C. Marshall, Jr. of the Office
of Compliance, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA has submitted the following ICR to OMB
for review and approval according to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR
1320.12. On July 30, 2009 (74 FR 38005), EPA sought comments on this
ICR pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.8(d). EPA received no comments. Any
additional comments on this ICR should be submitted to EPA and OMB
within 30 days of this notice.
    EPA has established a public docket for this ICR under docket ID
number EPA-HQ-OECA-2009-0534, which is available for public viewing
online at http://www.regulations.gov, in person viewing at the
Enforcement and Compliance Docket in the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC),
EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. The
EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number
for the Enforcement and Compliance Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Use EPA's electronic docket and comment system at http://
www.regulations.gov, to submit or view public comments, access the
index listing of the contents of the docket, and to access those
documents in the docket that are available electronically. Once in the
system, select ``docket search,'' then key in the docket ID number
identified above. Please note that EPA's policy is that public
comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made
available for public viewing at http://www.regulations.gov, as EPA
receives them and without change, unless the comment contains
copyrighted material, Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other
information whose public disclosure is restricted by statute. For
further information about the electronic docket, go to http://
www.regulations.gov.
    Title: NESHAP for Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations (Renewal).
    ICR Numbers: EPA ICR Number 1717.07, OMB Control Number 2060-0313.
    ICR Status: This ICR is scheduled to expire on July 31, 2010. Under
OMB regulations, the Agency may continue to conduct or sponsor the
collection of information while this submission is pending at OMB. An
agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's regulations
in title 40 of the CFR, after appearing in the Federal Register when
approved, are listed in 40 CFR part 9, and displayed either by
publication in the Federal Register or by other appropriate means, such
as on the related collection instrument or form, if applicable. The
display of OMB control

numbers in certain EPA regulations is consolidated in 40 CFR part 9.
    Abstract: The National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (NESHAP) for Off-Site Waste and Recovery Operations were
proposed on October 13, 1994, and promulgated on July 1, 1996.
    The affected entities are subject to the General Provisions of the
NESHAP at 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, and any changes, or additions to
the Provisions specified at 40 CFR part 63, subpart DD. Owners or
operators of the affected facilities must submit a one-time-only report
of any physical or operational changes, initial performance tests, and
periodic reports and results. Owners or operators are also required to
maintain records of the occurrence and duration of any startup,
shutdown, or malfunction in the operation of an affected facility, or
any period during which the monitoring system is inoperative. Reports,
at a minimum, are required semiannually.
    Burden Statement: The annual public reporting and recordkeeping
burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 219
hours per response. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial
resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or
disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This
includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements which have subsequently changed; train
personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search
data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and
transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
    Respondents/Affected Entities: Offsite waste and recovery
operations.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 236.
    Frequency of Response: Initially, occasionally, and semiannually.
    Estimated Total Annual Hour Burden: 155,212.
    Estimated Total Annual Cost: $14,686,728, which includes
$14,681,368 in labor costs, $0 in capital/startup costs, and $5,360 in
operation and maintenance (O&M) costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is no change in the calculation
methodology for labor hours in this ICR compared to the previous ICR.
This is due to two considerations: (1) the regulations have not changed
over the past three years and are not anticipated to change over the
next three years; and (2) the growth rate for the respondents is very
low, negative or non-existent. There is, however, an apparent increase
of 906 hours in respondent labor hours, due to a math error in the
previous ICR.
    Also, there is an increase in both respondent and Agency costs
resulting from labor rate increases from 2003 to 2009. In this ICR, the
labor burden and cost calculations in Tables 1 and 2 of this ICR were
expanded to include managerial and clerical labor rates, and the
previous ICR only provided a technical labor rate for 2003. This ICR
has been updated to present the most recent available labor rates for
each of the three labor categories.

    Dated: May 17, 2010.
John Moses,
Director, Collection Strategies Division.
[FR Doc. 2010-12284 Filed 5-20-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 164 (Friday, August 23, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 52477-52485]
[FR Doc No: 2013-20662]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2011-0727; FRL-FRL-9900-24-Region 8]

Promulgation of State Implementation Plan Revisions; Revision to
Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program; Infrastructure
Requirements for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 National Ambient
Air Quality Standards; Utah

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to partially approve and partially disapprove
the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submissions from the State of Utah
to demonstrate that the SIP meets the infrastructure requirements of
the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) promulgated for particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5
micrometers ([mu]m) in diameter (PM2.5) on July 18, 1997 and
on October 17, 2006. The CAA requires that each state, after a new or
revised NAAQS is promulgated, review their SIP to ensure that it meets
the requirements of the ``infrastructure elements'' necessary to
implement the new or revised NAAQS. The State of Utah provided
infrastructure submissions for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS, dated April 17, 2008 and September 21, 2010, respectively. We
propose to disapprove the submissions with respect to the requirements
for state boards and to approve the remaining submissions that we have
not already acted on. We also propose to approve portions of a
submission from the State which was received by EPA on March 19, 2012.
This submission revises Utah's Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) program to meet Federal requirements as they existed on July 1,
2011, including required elements of EPA's 2008 PM2.5 New
Source Review (NSR) Implementation Rule and 2010 PM2.5
Increment Rule. EPA acted separately on the State's submissions to meet
certain interstate transport requirements of the CAA for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before September 23,
2013.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2011-0727, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions for submitting comments.
     Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER> (please alert the individual listed in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing comments).
     Mail: Director, Air Program, Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver,
Colorado 80202-1129.
     Hand Delivery: Director, Air Program, Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop
Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. Such deliveries are only accepted
Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding federal
holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-
2011-0727. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
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 www.regulations.gov or email. The
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 email comment
directly to EPA, without going through www.regulations.gov your email
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. For additional
information about EPA's public docket visit the EPA Docket Center
homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. For additional
instructions on submitting comments, go to section I, General
Information, of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Program,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street,
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to view the hard copy of the docket. You may view the hard copy
of the docket Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., excluding
federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy Ayala, Air Program, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mail Code 8P-AR, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129.<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Definitions

    For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain
words or initials as follows:
    (i) The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the Clean Air
Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
    (ii) The initials CBI mean or refer to confidential business
information.
    (iii) The initials DEQ mean or refer to Department of Environmental
Quality.
    (iv) The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United
States Environmental Protection Agency.
    (v) The initials FIP mean or refer to a Federal Implementation
Plan.
    (vi) The initials GHG mean or refer to greenhouse gases.
    (vii) The initials NAAQS mean or refer to national ambient air
quality standards.
    (viii) The initials NOX mean or refer to nitrogen oxides.
    (ix) The initials NSR mean or refer to new source review.
    (x) The initials OAQPS mean or refer to the Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards.
    (xi) The initials PM mean or refer to particulate matter.
    (xii) The initials PM2.5 mean or refer to particulate matter with
an aerodynamic diameter of less than 2.5 micrometers (fine particulate
matter).
    (xiii) The initials ppm mean or refer to parts per million.

    (xiv) The initials PSD mean or refer to Prevention of Significant
Deterioration.
    (xv) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.
    (xvi) The initials SSM mean or refer to start-up, shutdown, or
malfunction.
    (xvii) The initials UAC mean or refer to Utah Administrative Code.
    (xviii) The initials UCA mean or refer to Utah Code Annotated.
    (xix) The initials UDAQ mean or refer to the Utah Department of Air
Quality.

Table of Contents

I. General Information
II. Background
III. What is the scope of this rulemaking?
IV. What infrastructure elements are required under Sections
110(a)(1) and (2)?
V. How did Utah address the infrastructure elements of Sections
110(a)(1) and (2)?
VI. What action is EPA taking?
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. General Information

What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    1. Submitting Confidential Business Information (CBI). Do not
submit CBI to EPA through http://www.regulations.gov or email. Clearly
mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For
CBI information on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the
outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically
within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as
CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes
information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain
the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the
public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register, date, and
page number);
     Follow directions and organize your comments;
     Explain why you agree or disagree;
     Suggest alternatives and substitute language for your
requested changes;
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used;
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced;
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and
suggest alternatives;
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats; and
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. Background

    On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated new NAAQS for particulate matter
less than or equal to 2.5 micrometers ([mu]m) in diameter
(PM2.5). Two new PM2.5 standards were added, set
at 15 [mu]g/m\3\, based on the 3-year average of annual arithmetic mean
PM2.5 concentration from single or multiple community-
oriented monitors, and 65 [mu]g/m\3\, based on the 3-year average of
the 98th percentile of 24-hour PM2.5 concentrations at each
population-oriented monitor within an area. In addition, the 24-hour
PM10 standard was revised to be based on the 99th percentile
of 24-hour PM10 concentration at each monitor within an area
(62 FR 38652).
    On October 17, 2006 EPA promulgated a revised NAAQS for
PM2.5, tightening the level of the 24-hour PM2.5
standard to 35 [mu]g/m\3\ and retaining the level of the annual
PM2.5 standard at 15 [mu]g/m\3\. EPA also retained the 24-
hour PM10 standard and revoked the annual PM10
standard (71 FR 61144). By statute, SIPs meeting the requirements of
sections 110(a)(1) and (2) are to be submitted by states within three
years after promulgation of a new or revised standard. Section
110(a)(2) provides basic requirements for SIPs, including emissions
inventories, monitoring, and modeling, to assure attainment and
maintenance of the standards. These requirements are set out in several
``infrastructure elements,'' listed in section 110(a)(2).
    Section 110(a) imposes the obligation upon states to make a SIP
submission to EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, and the contents of that
submission may vary depending upon the facts and circumstances. In
particular, the data and analytical tools available at the time the
state develops and submits the SIP for a new or revised NAAQS affects
the content of the submission. The contents of such SIP submissions may
also vary depending upon what provisions the state's existing SIP
already contains. In the case of the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS, states typically have met the basic program elements required in
section 110(a)(2) through earlier SIP submissions in connection with
previous NAAQS.

III. What is the scope of this rulemaking?

    This rulemaking will not cover four substantive issues that are not
integral to acting on a state's infrastructure SIP submission: (i)
Existing provisions related to excess emissions during periods of
start-up, shutdown, or malfunction at sources, that may be contrary to
the CAA and EPA's policies addressing such excess emissions (``SSM'');
(ii) existing provisions related to ``director's variance'' or
``director's discretion'' that purport to permit revisions to SIP
approved emissions limits with limited public process or without
requiring further approval by EPA, that may be contrary to the CAA
(``director's discretion''); (iii) existing provisions for minor source
NSR programs that may be inconsistent with the requirements of the CAA
and EPA's regulations that pertain to such programs (``minor source
NSR''); and, (iv) existing provisions for PSD programs that may be
inconsistent with current requirements of EPA's ``Final NSR Improvement
Rule,'' 67 FR 80186 (December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526
(June 13, 2007) (``NSR Reform''). Instead, EPA has indicated that it
has other authority to address any such existing SIP defects in other
rulemakings, as appropriate. A detailed rationale for why these four
substantive issues are not part of the scope of infrastructure SIP
rulemakings can be found in EPA's July 13, 2011, final rule entitled,
``Infrastructure SIP Requirements for the 1997 8-hour Ozone and
PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards'' in the
section entitled, ``What Is The Scope Of This Final Rulemaking?'' (see
76 FR 41075 at 41076-41079).

IV. What infrastructure elements are required under Sections 110(a)(1)
and (2)?

    Section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and timing requirements
for SIP submissions after a new or revised NAAQS is promulgated.
Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements the SIP must contain or
satisfy. These infrastructure elements include requirements such as
modeling, monitoring, and emissions inventories, which are designed to
assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. The elements that are
the subject of this action are listed below.
     110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control measures.
     110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality monitoring/data system.
     110(a)(2)(C): Program for enforcement of control measures.

     110(a)(2)(D): Interstate transport.
     110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources and authority, conflict
of interest, and oversight of local governments and regional agencies.
     110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source monitoring and reporting.
     110(a)(2)(G): Emergency powers.
     110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP revisions.
     110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with government officials;
public notification; and PSD and visibility protection.
     110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling/data.
     110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees.
     110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/participation by affected local
entities.
    A detailed discussion of each of these elements is contained in the
next section.
    EPA is acting separately on Utah's submission to meet the
requirements of element 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), interstate transport of
pollutants which contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or
interfere with maintenance by, any other state. EPA is also acting
separately on the visibility portion of element 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
    Two elements identified in section 110(a)(2) are not governed by
the three year submission deadline of section 110(a)(1) and are
therefore not addressed in this action. These elements relate to part D
of Title I of the CAA, and submissions to satisfy them are not due
within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, but
rather are due at the same time nonattainment area plan requirements
are due under section 172. The two elements are: (i) Section
110(a)(2)(C) to the extent it refers to permit programs (known as
``nonattainment new source review (NSR)'') required under part D, and
(ii) section 110(a)(2)(I), pertaining to the nonattainment planning
requirements of part D. As a result, this action does not address
infrastructure elements related to the nonattainment NSR portion of
section 110(a)(2)(C) or related to 110(a)(2)(I).

V. How did Utah address the infrastructure elements of sections
110(a)(1) and (2)?

    1. Emission limits and other control measures: Section 110(a)(2)(A)
requires SIPs to include enforceable emission limitations and other
control measures, means, or techniques (including economic incentives
such as fees, marketable permits, and auctions of emissions rights), as
well as schedules and timetables for compliance as may be necessary or
appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of this Act.
    a. Utah's response to this requirement: The State's submissions for
the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 infrastructure requirements cite the
Utah Code Annotated (UAC) SIP Section I (Legal Authority). A.1.a.,
codified at R307-110-2 which allows adoption of standards and limits
for attainment and maintenance of national standards (19-2-104 and 109,
UCA) and was approved by EPA in the early 1980's and most recently on
June 25, 2003 (68 FR 37744).
    b. EPA analysis: Utah's SIP meets the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(A) for the 1997 and 2006 PM NAAQS, subject to the following
clarifications. First, this infrastructure element does not require the
submittal of regulations or emission limitations developed specifically
for attaining the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Aside from
this, the Utah SIP currently contains provisions for control of
particulate matter, such as open burning provisions in R307-202, and
for control of precursors, such as fuel sulfur content provisions in
R307-203. Utah also regulates sources of PM2.5 through its
PSD and minor NSR programs. This suffices, in the case of Utah, to meet
the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A) for the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.
    Second, in this action, EPA is not proposing to approve or
disapprove any existing state rules with regard to director's
discretion or variance provisions. A number of states have such
provisions which are contrary to the CAA and existing EPA guidance (52
FR 45109, Nov. 24, 1987), and the Agency plans to take action in the
future to address such state regulations. In the meantime, EPA
encourages any state having a director's discretion or variance
provision which is contrary to the CAA and EPA guidance to take steps
to correct the deficiency as soon as possible.
    Finally, in this action, EPA is also not proposing to approve or
disapprove any existing state provisions with regard to excess
emissions during startup, shutdown, or malfunction (SSM) of operations
at a facility. A number of states have SSM provisions which are
contrary to the CAA and existing EPA guidance.\1\ In the specific case
of SSM provisions in the Utah SIP, EPA has issued a finding of
substantial inadequacy and call for a SIP revision for Utah's
``unavoidable breakdown'' rule (76 FR 21639, Apr. 18, 2011). On May 9,
2013 (78 FR 27165), EPA proposed to approve revisions submitted by Utah
to correct the deficiencies identified in EPA's April 18, 2011 SIP
call. As stated above, though, EPA is not proposing to address SSM
provisions in the context of this action and therefore proposes to
approve the Utah certification for infrastructure element 110(a)(2)(A)
for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Steven Herman, Assistant Administrator for Enforcement and
Compliance Assurance, and Robert Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation, Memorandum to EPA Air Division Directors,
``State Implementation Plans (SIPs): Policy Regarding Emissions
During Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown.'' (Sept. 20, 1999)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Ambient air quality monitoring/data system: Section 110(a)(2)(B)
requires SIPs to provide for establishment and operation of appropriate
devices, methods, systems, and procedures necessary to ``(i) monitor,
compile, and analyze data on ambient air quality, and (ii) upon
request, make such data available to the Administrator.''
    a. Utah's response to this requirement: The State's submissions for
the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 infrastructure requirements cite UAC
rule R307-110-5 SIP Section IV (Ambient Air Monitoring Program) which
provides a brief description of the purposes of the air monitoring
program approved by EPA in the early 1980's and most recently on June
25, 2003 (68 FR 37744).
    b. EPA analysis: Utah's air monitoring programs and data systems
meet the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(B) for the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS. The State of Utah submitted a 2012 Air
Monitoring Network Plan on June 5, 2013 which EPA approved for
PM2.5 on July 24, 2013.
    3. Program for enforcement of control measures: Section
110(a)(2)(C) requires SIPs to include a program to provide for the
enforcement of the measures described in subparagraph (A), and
regulation of the modification and construction of any stationary
source within the areas covered by the plan as necessary to assure that
NAAQS are achieved, including a permit program as required in parts C
and D.
    a. Utah's response to this requirement: The State's submissions for
the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 infrastructure requirements cite UAC
rule R307-110-2, SIP Section I (Legal Authority), A.1.b., which allows
for enforcement of applicable laws, regulations, and standards and to
seek injunctive relief (Sections 19-2-104 and 19-2-115, UCA), and SIP
Section I (Legal Authority), A.1.d., which provides authority to
prevent construction, modification, or operation of any stationary
source at any location where emissions from such source will prevent
the attainment or maintenance of a national standard or interfere with
prevention of significant deterioration requirements (Authority Utah
Code

Section 19-2-108). EPA approved this SIP in the early 1980's and most
recently on June 25, 2003 (68 FR 37744).
    The State also cites UAC rule R307-110-9. SIP Section VIII (PSD),
which describes the program to prevent significant deterioration of
areas of the state where the air is clean. EPA approved SIP Section
VIII, PSD, on July 15, 2011 (76 FR 41712).
    b. EPA analysis: To generally meet the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(C), the state is required to have SIP-approved PSD,
nonattainment NSR, and minor NSR permitting programs adequate to
implement the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. As explained above,
in this action EPA is not evaluating nonattainment related provisions,
such as the nonattainment NSR program required by part D of the Act.
EPA is evaluating the state's PSD program as required by part C of the
Act, and the state's minor NSR program as required by 110(a)(2)(C).

PSD Requirements

    Utah has a SIP-approved PSD program that meets the general
requirements of part C of the Act (51 FR 31125). To satisfy the
particular requirements of section 110(a)(2)(C), states should have a
PSD program that applies to all regulated NSR pollutants, including
greenhouse gases (GHGs). See 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48) and (b)(49). The PSD
program should reflect current requirements for these pollutants. In
particular, for three pollutants--ozone, PM2.5, and GHGs--
there are additional regulatory requirements (set out in portions of 40
CFR 51.166) that we considered in evaluating Utah's PSD program. In the
rulemakings in which EPA revised the requirements in 40 CFR 51.166 for
these pollutants, EPA also updated the federal PSD program at 40 CFR
52.21 accordingly.
    Utah implements the PSD program by, for the most part,
incorporating by reference the federal PSD program as it existed on a
specific date. The State periodically updates the PSD program by
revising the date of incorporation by reference and submitting the
change as a SIP revision. As a result, the SIP revisions generally
reflect changes to PSD requirements that EPA has promulgated prior to
the revised date of incorporation by reference.
    In particular, on July 15, 2011 (75 FR 41712), we approved portions
of a Utah SIP revision that revised the date of incorporation by
reference of the federal PSD program to July 1, 2007. That revision
addressed the PSD requirements of the Phase 2 Ozone Implementation Rule
promulgated in 2005 (70 FR 71612). As a result, the approved Utah PSD
program meets current requirements for ozone.
    With regard to GHGs, in the ``PSD SIP Narrowing Rule'' (75 FR
82536, Dec. 30, 2012), EPA withdrew its previous approval of Utah's PSD
program to the extent that it applied PSD permitting to GHG emissions
increases from GHG-emitting sources below thresholds set in EPA's June
3, 2010 ``Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V
Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule'' (``Tailoring Rule''), 75 FR 31514. EPA
withdrew its approval on the basis that the State lacked sufficient
resources to issue PSD permits to such sources at the statutory
thresholds in effect in the previously-approved PSD program. After the
PSD SIP Narrowing Rule, the portion of Utah's PSD SIP from which EPA
withdrew its approval had the status of having been submitted to EPA
but not yet acted upon. On June 22, 2011, EPA received a letter from
Utah clarifying that the State relies only on the portion of the PSD
program that remains approved after the PSD SIP Narrowing Rule issued
on December 30, 2010 to satisfy the requirements of infrastructure
element 110(a)(2)(C). Given EPA's basis for the PSD SIP Narrowing Rule
and this clarification, the PSD program is adequate with respect to
regulation of GHGs.
    For PM2.5, EPA has promulgated two relevant rules. The
first, promulgated in 2008, addresses (among other things) treatment of
PM2.5 precursors in PSD programs. The second, promulgated in
2010, establishes (among other things) increments for PM2.5.
    On January 4, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals, in Natural Resources
Defense Council v. EPA, 706 F.3d 428 (D.C. Cir. 2013), issued a
judgment that remanded EPA's 2007 and 2008 rules implementing the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS. The Court ordered EPA to ``repromulgate these
rules pursuant to Subpart 4 consistent with this opinion.'' Id. at 437.
Subpart 4 of Part D, Title 1 of the CAA establishes additional
provisions for particulate matter nonattainment areas.
    The 2008 implementation rule addressed by the court decision,
``Implementation of New Source Review (NSR) Program for Particulate
Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers (PM2.5),'' (73 FR 28321,
May 16, 2008), promulgated New Source Review (NSR) requirements for
implementation of PM2.5 in nonattainment areas
(nonattainment NSR) and attainment/unclassifiable areas (PSD). As the
requirements of Subpart 4 only pertain to nonattainment areas, EPA does
not consider the portions of the 2008 Implementation rule that address
requirements for PM2.5 attainment and unclassifiable areas
to be affected by the Court's opinion. Moreover, EPA does not
anticipate the need to revise any PSD requirements promulgated in the
2008 Implementation rule in order to comply with the Court's decision.
Accordingly, EPA's approval of Utah's infrastructure SIP as to elements
(C) or (J) with respect to the PSD requirements promulgated by the 2008
Implementation rule does not conflict with the Court's opinion.
    The Court's decision with respect to the nonattainment NSR
requirements promulgated by the 2008 Implementation rule also does not
affect EPA's action on the present infrastructure action. EPA
interprets the Act to exclude nonattainment area requirements,
including requirements associated with a nonattainment NSR program,
from infrastructure SIP submissions due three years after adoption or
revision of a NAAQS. Instead, these elements are typically referred to
as nonattainment SIP or attainment plan elements, which would be due by
the dates statutorily prescribed under subpart 2 through 5 under part
D, extending as far as ten years following designations for some
elements.
    The second PSD requirement for PM2.5 is contained in
EPA's October 20, 2010 rule, ``Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) for Particulate Matter Less Than 2.5 Micrometers
(PM2.5)--Increments, Significant Impact Levels (SILs) and
Significant Monitoring Concentration (SMC)'' (75 FR 64864). EPA regards
adoption of the PM2.5 increments as a necessary requirement
when assessing a PSD program for the purposes of element (C).
    As explained above, the PSD program as currently approved into the
SIP incorporates by reference the federal PSD program as it existed on
July 1, 2007, prior to EPA's promulgation of the 2008 PM2.5
Implementation Rule and the 2010 PM2.5 Increment Rule. On
March 14, 2012, the State of Utah submitted revisions to the PSD
program that adopt by reference federal provisions of 40 CFR part 52,
section 21, as they existed on July 1, 2011. As that date is after the
effective date of the two rules, the submission incorporates the
requirements of them. We propose to approve the necessary portions of
the March 14, 2012 submission to reflect the 2008 PM2.5
Implementation Rule and the 2010 PM2.5 Increment Rule;
specifically 40 CFR part 52, section 21, paragraphs
(b)(14)(i),(ii),(iii), (b)(15)(i),(ii), (b)(23)(i), (b)(50) and
paragraph (c) as they existed on July 1, 2011. We are not proposing to
act on any other portions of the March 14,

2012 submittal, including the incorporation by reference of significant
impact levels (SILs) and significant monitoring concentrations (SMCs)
for PM2.5.
    With the partial approval of the March 14, 2012 submittal, the Utah
PSD program will meet current requirements for all regulated NSR
pollutants. As a result, we also propose to approve the Utah
infrastructure SIP for element (C) for the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS with respect to PSD requirements.
    Finally, EPA proposes to correct, under section 110(k)(6) of the
Act, a statement made regarding PSD programs in our July 22, 2011
notice (76 FR 43898) finalizing approval of Utah's infrastructure SIP
for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. In that notice, we responded to a comment
stating that proposed changes to the Utah Administrative Code would,
among other things, restrict the availability of judicial review of PSD
permits in state courts. In our response, we stated, among other
things, ``Although EPA is not assessing the availability of state
judicial review for PSD permits issued by Utah, as the CAA makes no
requirements regarding such availability, EPA also notes that the
comment does not explain, for example, why denial of a petition to
intervene in a state administrative PSD permit proceeding would not
exhaust the petitioner's administrative remedies and therefore make
state judicial review available to the petitioner.'' The portion of our
response stating that the Act makes no requirements regarding
availability of judicial review for PSD permits was in error, (see,
e.g., 61 FR 1880, 1882, Jan. 24, 1996; 77 FR 65305, 65306, Oct. 6,
2012), and we propose to correct the error by striking that clause.
This correction does not change the basis for our approval of the Utah
infrastructure SIP for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, as we rejected the comment
on other grounds. This correction also does not reopen our previous
action to comment with the exception of our proposed deletion of the
incorrect language.

Minor NSR

    The State has a SIP-approved minor NSR program, adopted under
section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Act. The minor NSR program is found in
section II of the Utah SIP, and was originally approved by EPA as
section 2 of the SIP (see 68 FR 37744, June 25, 2003). Since approval
of the minor NSR program, the State and EPA have relied on the program
to assure that new and modified sources not captured by the major NSR
permitting programs do not interfere with attainment and maintenance of
the NAAQS.
    In this action, EPA is proposing to approve Utah's infrastructure
SIP for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS with respect to the
general requirement in section 110(a)(2)(C) to include a program in the
SIP that regulates the modification and construction of any stationary
source as necessary to assure that the NAAQS are achieved. Utah's minor
NSR program, as approved into the SIP, covers the construction and
modification of stationary sources of ``air pollution,'' a defined term
in the Utah SIP that covers a broad range of emissions, including
PM2.5 and its precursors.\2\ EPA is not proposing to approve
or disapprove the State's existing minor NSR program itself to the
extent that it is inconsistent with EPA's regulations governing this
program. A number of states may have minor NSR provisions that are
contrary to the existing EPA regulations for this program. EPA intends
to work with states to reconcile state minor NSR programs with EPA's
regulatory provisions for the program. The statutory requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(C) provide for considerable flexibility in designing
minor NSR programs, and it may be time to revisit the regulatory
requirements for this program to give the states an appropriate level
of flexibility to design a program that meets their particular air
quality concerns, while assuring reasonable consistency across the
country in protecting the NAAQS with respect to new and modified minor
sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ On June 12, 2013 (78 FR 35181), EPA proposed to partially
approve and partially disapprove certain revisions to Utah's minor
NSR program. The minor NSR program as amended by those revisions we
proposed to approve would, if we complete our proposal, also satisfy
the general requirement in 110(a)(2)(C) described above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. Interstate Transport: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) is subdivided into
four ``prongs,'' two under 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and two under
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II). The two prongs under 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) are (prong
1) contribute significantly to nonattainment in any other state with
respect to any such national primary or secondary NAAQS, and (prong 2)
interfere with maintenance by any other state with respect to the same
NAAQS. The two prongs under 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) are (prong 3) interfere
with measures required to be included in the applicable implementation
plan for any other state under part C to prevent significant
deterioration of air quality or (prong 4) to protect visibility. We are
not acting on Utah's submissions with respect to the requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (prongs 1 and 2) in this proposed
rulemaking. We are also not acting on the submissions with respect to
the requirements of prong 4 (visibility protection) in this action.
    a. Utah's response to this requirement: Concerning PSD--EPA
believes this requirement is satisfied for PM2.5 if a
state's SIP includes preconstruction review programs for major sources
that satisfy the requirements of both Nonattainment NSR and PSD (40 CFR
51.165(b)(1) and 51.166, respectively). All states are currently
required to have some form of preconstruction permitting program for
PM2.5, and as per the guidance, it is not necessary to make
any rule revisions specifically for the purpose of Section 110 unless
the area has outstanding program deficiencies.
    Utah is currently operating under the PM10 surrogate
policy for the PSD program, as outlined in the 1997 EPA memorandum
entitled ``Interim Implementation of New Source Review Requirements for
PM2.5.'' Utah intends to incorporate PM2.5 into
the PSD program by May 2011, as required by the May 16, 2008,
PM2.5 Implementation Rule for PM2.5 NSR. We
anticipate that EPA will have established certain requirements, such as
PM2.5 increments and Significant Impact Levels, and stack
testing requirements that need to be in place before PM2.5
can be adequately addressed in the PSD program. Utah is currently
operating under the provisions of Appendix S for PM2.5
nonattainment areas.
    b. EPA Analysis: As noted by Utah in their submission for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS, we previously approved Utah's submission for
all four portions of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), including the PSD and
visibility portions, for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. (73 FR
16543). In this action, we are only assessing Utah's submission for the
PSD portion of 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    With regard to the PSD portion of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), this
requirement may be met by the state's confirmation in an infrastructure
SIP submission that new major sources and major modifications in the
state are subject to a PSD program meeting all the current structural
requirements of part C of title I of the CAA or (if the state contains
a nonattainment area for the relevant pollutant) to a non-attainment
NSR (NNSR) program that implements the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. As
discussed in more detail in section 110(a)(2)(C), with our concurrent
approval of certain revisions to Utah's PSD program, Utah's SIP will
contain a PSD program that reflects all structural PSD requirements.
Additionally, as stated in its

submission, Utah is operating under the provisions of Appendix S in its
2006 PM2.5 nonattainment areas. The State therefore meets
the structural NNSR requirements for this pollutant in the interim
period between designation and final EPA approval of a nonattainment
NSR program update. Accordingly, in this action EPA is proposing to
approve the infrastructure SIP submission as meeting the requirements
of prong 3 of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 2006 PM2.5
NAAQS.
    5. Adequate resources and authority: Section 110(a)(2)(E) requires
states to provide ``(i) necessary assurances that the state will have
adequate personnel, funding, and authority under state law to carry out
the SIP (and is not prohibited by any provision of federal or state law
from carrying out the SIP or portion thereof)'' and ``(iii) necessary
assurances that, where the state has relied on a local or regional
government, agency, or instrumentality for the implementation of any
SIP provision, the state has responsibility for ensuring adequate
implementation of such SIP provision.''
    a. Utah's response to this requirement: The State's submissions for
the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 infrastructure requirements cite SIP
Section V (Resources) which commits to implement program activities in
relation to resources provided by the annual State/EPA Agreement and
105 grant applications. EPA approved this SIP originally in the early
1980's and most recently on June 25, 2003 (68 FR 37744).
    Section 41-6a-1642 provides counties the authority to run their own
emissions inspection and maintenance program, and Subsection 41-6a-
1642(2)(b)(i) requires the counties emissions inspection and
maintenance program to be made to attain or maintain ambient air
quality standards in the county, consistent with the SIP and federal
requirements. Section X of the SIP outlines the specific requirements
of the automotive inspection and maintenance program.
    b. EPA Analysis: Chapter 2 of Title 19 of the Utah Code gives the
UDAQ and Air Quality Board (AQB) adequate authority to carry out the
SIP. The State receives sections 103 and 105 grant funds through its
Performance Partnership Grant along with required State matching funds
to provide funding necessary to carry out Utah's SIP requirements.
Utah's SIP meets the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) and
(E)(iii) for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    6. State boards: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requires that the state
comply with the requirements respecting state boards under CAA section
128.
    a. Utah's response to this requirement: The State's submissions for
the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 infrastructure requirements cite UAC
rules R307-110-2 (approved by EPA in the early 1980's and most recently
on June 25, 2003 at 68 FR 37744), R307-110-31 (approved by EPA on
November 2, 2005 at 70 FR 66264), R307-32 (approved by EPA on July 17,
1997 at 62 FR 38213), R307-33 (approved by EPA on August 1, 2005 at 70
FR 44055), R307-34 (approved by EPA on November 2, 2005 at 70 FR
66264), and R307-35 (approved by EPA on September 14, 2005 at 70 FR
54267).
    SIP Section I (Legal Authority), A.1.g, recognizes the requirement
that the State comply with provisions of the CAA (Section 128)
respecting State Boards (Sections 19-2-104 UCA).
    b. EPA Analysis: We propose to disapprove Utah's submissions for
element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) because the submissions do not adequately
address the requirements of CAA section 128. To explain our proposed
disapproval, we must discuss the state law governing the composition
and authority of the Utah AQB. Under sections 19-1-301 and 19-2-104 of
the Utah Code as they existed at the time of Utah's infrastructure
submissions, the AQB had the authority to review decisions proposed by
an administrative law judge (ALJ) on administrative appeals of permits
and enforcement orders issued by the Utah DAQ. In other words, at that
time the AQB was a ``board or body which approves permits or
enforcement orders'' under the CAA and so fell within the scope of CAA
section 128.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See, for example, 78 FR 32613 (May 31, 2013), for a
discussion of the phrase ``board or body which approves permits or
enforcement orders.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Correspondingly, as described in Utah's infrastructure submissions,
Utah SIP Section I referenced Utah Code section 19-2-104, which sets
out the powers of the AQB, as addressing the requirements of CAA
section 128. However, Utah Code section 19-2-103, which sets out the
composition of the AQB, more directly addressed those requirements. In
particular, section 19-2-103 required a majority of members to not
derive a significant portion of their income from persons subject to
permits or enforcement orders under the Act, and it specified a diverse
range of interests that particular members must represent. In addition,
section 19-2-103 required members of the AQB to adequately disclose
potential conflicts of interest.
    However, Utah's infrastructure submissions no longer reflect state
law. In two bills enacted in 2012, the Utah Legislature amended Utah
Code sections 19-1-301, 19-2-103, and 19-2-104 in several significant
ways.\4\ First, the Legislature added section 19-1-301.5, which governs
administrative appeals of permits issued by UDAQ. Section 19-1-301
continues to govern adjudicative proceedings regarding other UDAQ
actions. Second, in both sections 19-1-301 and 19-1-301.5, the
Legislature transferred the authority of the AQB over proposed ALJ
decisions to the Executive Director of DEQ. Correspondingly, the
Legislature amended section 19-2-104 to reflect that the AQB no longer
retained that authority. However, the AQB appears to still retain some
enforcement authorities under Utah Code sections 19-2-104(3)(a)(ii) and
(b)(i). In addition, the Legislature modified the requirements for
composition of the AQB and removed the provision requiring members of
the AQB to disclose potential conflicts of interest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Enrolled copies of Utah Senate Bills 11 and 21 from the 2012
General Session, which show the changes in state law in strikeout/
underline format, are provided in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With these changes in state law, Utah's infrastructure SIP
submissions do not adequately address how or whether CAA sections
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and 128 are satisfied by the State's SIP. First, to
the extent that, after the changes in state law, the AQB remains a
board that approves enforcement orders within the meaning of CAA
section 128, the SIP should contain provisions addressing the
requirements of section 128 as applied to the AQB, including the
requirement of section 128(a)(2) that members of the AQB adequately
disclose potential conflicts of interest. Even if the requirements of
section 128 were previously addressed to some extent by Utah Code
section 19-2-103,\5\ the current version of section 19-2-103 at a
minimum no longer addresses disclosure of potential conflicts of
interest by the AQB. Second, to the extent that, after the changes in
state law, the Executive Director of DEQ now approves permits within
the meaning of CAA section 128, the Executive Director (and/or the
Executive Director's delegate) is subject to the disclosure
requirements of section

128(a)(2). See, for example, 78 FR 32613 (May 31, 2013). Neither the
previous version nor the current version of Utah Code section 19-2-103
addresses disclosure of potential conflicts by the Executive Director.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ EPA also notes that even if the previous version of Utah
Code section 19-2-103 adequately addressed the requirements of
section 128 as applied to the AQB, Utah SIP section I does not
explicitly incorporate Utah Code section 19-2-103. Instead, it
references Utah Code section 19-2-104, which does not address the
requirements of CAA section 128. CAA Section 128 must be satisfied
through federally enforceable provisions that are approved into the
SIP. See, for example, 78 FR 32613 (May 31, 2013).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As Utah's infrastructure submissions do not address the
requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and 128 as they apply
under current state law, we propose to disapprove Utah's submissions
for the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) for the 1997 and
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    7. Stationary source monitoring system: Section 110(a)(2)(F)
requires ``(i) the installation, maintenance, and replacement of
equipment, and the implementation of other necessary steps, by owners
or operators of stationary sources to monitor emissions from such
sources, (ii) periodic reports on the nature and amounts of emissions
and emissions-related data from such sources, and (iii) correlation of
such reports by the state agency with any emission limitations or
standards established pursuant to the Act, which reports shall be
available at reasonable times for public inspection.''
    a. Utah's response to this requirement: The State's submissions for
the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 infrastructure requirements cite
Section I (Legal Authority).A.1.f., codified at R307-110-2 (approved by
EPA in the early 1980's and most recently on June 25, 2003 at 68 FR
37744) requiring owners or operators of stationary sources to install,
maintain, and use emission monitoring devices; and to make periodic
reports to the State DEQ on the nature and amounts of emissions from
such sources. The State DEQ will make such data available to the public
as reported and as correlated with any applicable emission standards or
limitations (Sections 19-2-104, UCA).
    The State's submissions also cite UAC rule R307-110-4 (approved by
EPA in the early 1980's and most recently on June 25, 2003 at 68 FR
37744) SIP Section III (Source Surveillance) which includes inventory
requirements, stack testing, and plant inspections (Sections 19-2-107
and 19-2-108, UCA, allow inspection of air pollution sources).
    b. EPA Analysis: Utah's SIP meets the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(F) for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    8. Emergency powers: Section 110(a)(2)(G) requires states to
provide for authority to address activities causing imminent and
substantial endangerment to public health, including contingency plans
to implement the emergency episode provisions in their SIPs.
    a. Utah's response to this requirement: The State's submissions for
the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 infrastructure requirements cite UAC
rules R307-110-2 (approved by EPA in the early 1980's and most recently
on June 25, 2003 at 68 FR 37744) SIP Section I (Legal Authority).
A.1.c., that provides authority to abate pollutant emissions on an
emergency basis to prevent substantial endangerment to the health of
persons (Section 19-2-112, UCA); and R307-110-8 (approved by EPA in the
early 1980's and most recently on June 25, 2003 at 68 FR 37744) SIP
Section VII (Prevention of Air Pollution Emergency Episodes) (Section
19-2-112, UCA). A February 12, 2007, OAQPS Issue Paper indicated EPA
will be issuing a significant harm level rule for PM2.5.
Utah will address the requirements of 110(a)(2)(G) after EPA
promulgates this rule.
    b. EPA analysis: Section 19-2-112 of the UCA, cited by Utah SIP
Section I, provides DEQ with general emergency authority comparable to
that in section 303 of the Act. The SIP also requires DEQ to follow
criteria in 40 CFR 51.151 in proclaiming an emergency episode and to
develop a contingency plan.
    EPA's September 25, 2009 guidance suggested that states with areas
that have had a PM2.5 exceedance greater than 140.4 [mu]g/
m\3\ should develop and submit an emergency episode plan. If no such
concentration was recorded in the last three years, the guidance
suggested that the State can rely on its general emergency authorities.
In this rulemaking, we view these suggestions as still appropriate in
assessing Utah's SIP for this element. Utah has not had such a recorded
PM2.5 level and thus an emergency episode plan for
PM2.5 is not necessary. The SIP therefore meets the
requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(G) for the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS.
    9. Future SIP revisions: Section 110(a)(2)(H) requires that SIPs
provide for revision of such plan:

    (i) from time to time as may be necessary to take account of
revisions of such national primary or secondary ambient air quality
standard or the availability of improved or more expeditious methods
of attaining such standard, and
    (ii) except as provided in paragraph (3)(C), whenever the
Administrator finds on the basis of information available to the
Administrator that the [SIP] is substantially inadequate to attain
the [NAAQS] which it implements or to otherwise comply with any
additional requirements under this [Act].

    a. Utah's response to this requirement: The State's submissions for
the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 infrastructure requirements cite SIP
Section I (Legal Authority).A.1.a, codified at R307-110-2, which
identifies the statutory provisions that allow the UDAQ to revise its
plans to take account of revisions of a NAAQS and to adopt expeditious
methods of attaining and maintaining such standard. EPA approved this
SIP originally in the early 1980's and most recently on June 25, 2003
at 68 FR 37744.
    b. EPA analysis: Utah SIP Section I cites section 19-2-104 of the
Utah Code. Section 19-2-104 gives the AQB sufficient authority to meet
the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(H).
    10. Consultation with government officials, public notification,
PSD and visibility protection: Section 110(a)(2)(J) requires that each
SIP ``meet the applicable requirements of section 121 of this title
(relating to consultation), section 127 of this title (relating to
public notification), and part C of this subchapter (relating to PSD of
air quality and visibility protection).''
    a. Utah's response to this requirement: The State's submissions for
the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 infrastructure requirements of
section 121 relating to consultation cite UAC rules R307-110-2
(approved by EPA in the early 1980's and most recently on June 25, 2003
at 68 FR 37744) SIP Section I (Legal Authority).A.2, which adopts
requirements for transportation consultation (Section 174, CAA); R307-
110-7 (approved by EPA in the early 1980's and most recently on June
25, 2003 at 68 FR 37744) SIP Section VI (Intergovernmental Cooperation)
which provides a brief listing of federal, state, and local agencies
involved in protecting air quality in Utah; and R307-110-20 SIP Section
XII (Transportation Conformity Consultation) which establishes the
consultation procedures on transportation conformity issues when
preparing state plans. EPA approved SIP Section XII, Involvement, but
it has been superseded by SIP Section XII Transportation Conformity
Consultation, which was submitted to EPA on June 26, 2007 but EPA has
not approved this SIP.
    The State's submissions for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5
infrastructure requirements of section 127 relating to public
notification cite UAC rule R307-110-24 (approved by EPA in the early
1980's and most recently on June 25, 2003 at 68 FR 37744) SIP Section
XVI (Public Notification) which adopts the requirements to notify the
public when the NAAQS have been exceeded as per section 127.
    The State's submissions for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5
infrastructure

requirements of part C relating to the prevention of significant
deterioration of air quality and visibility protection cite UAC rules
R307-110-9 SIP Section VIII (PSD) which describes the program to
prevent significant deterioration of areas of the state where the air
is clean (EPA approved SIP Section VIII, PSD, but it has been updated
and superseded by a new SIP Section VIII, PSD, which was submitted to
EPA on September 15, 2006); and R307-110-25 (approved by EPA in April
1997 and most recently on June 25, 2003 at 68 FR 37744) SIP Section
XVII (Visibility Protection) which describes the program to protect
visibility, especially within the boundaries of the five national parks
located in Utah (Sections 19-2-101 and 104, UCA).
    b. EPA Analysis: The State has demonstrated that it has the
authority and rules in place to provide a process of consultation with
general purpose local governments, designated organizations of elected
officials of local governments and any Federal Land Manager having
authority over federal land to which the SIP applies, consistent with
the requirements of CAA section 121. Furthermore, SIP section XVI,
cited by Utah, satisfies the requirements of section 127 of the Act.
    The State has a SIP-approved PSD program that incorporates by
reference the federal program at 40 CFR 52.21; these provisions are
located in R307-405-2 of the UAC. EPA has further evaluated Utah's SIP-
approved PSD program in this proposed action under IV.3 of CAA section
110(a)(2)(C). There, we propose approval with respect to the PSD
requirements of element (C); we do likewise here with respect to the
PSD requirements of element (J).
    Finally, with regard to the applicable requirements for visibility
protection, EPA recognizes that states are subject to visibility and
regional haze program requirements under part C of the Act. In the
event of the establishment of a new NAAQS, however, the visibility and
regional haze program requirements under part C do not change. Thus we
find that there is no new visibility obligation ``triggered'' under
section 110(a)(2)(J) when a new NAAQS becomes effective. The Utah SIP
meets the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(J) for the 1997 and
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
    11. Air quality and modeling/data: Section 110(a)(2)(K) requires
that each SIP provide for:

    (i) the performance of such air quality modeling as the
Administrator may prescribe for the purpose of predicting the effect
on ambient air quality of any emissions of any air pollutant for
which the Administrator has established a [NAAQS], and (ii) the
submission, upon request, of data related to such air quality
modeling to the Administrator.

    a. Utah's response to this requirement: The State's submissions for
the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 infrastructure requirements cite SIP
Section II (Review of New and Modified Air Pollution Sources) codified
at R307-110-3 (approved by EPA in the early 1980's and most recently on
June 25, 2003 at 68 FR 37744) which provides that new or modified
sources of air pollution must submit plans to the UDAQ and receive an
Approval Order before operating (Section 19-2-104, UCA).
    b. EPA Analysis: Utah's SIP meets the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(K) for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. In
particular, Utah's PSD program incorporates by reference the federal
program at 40 CFR 52.21, including the provision at Sec.  52.21(l)(1)
requiring that estimates of ambient air concentrations be based on
applicable air quality models specified in Appendix W of 40 CFR part
51, and the provision at Sec.  52.21(l)(2) requiring that modification
or substitution of a model specified in Appendix W must be approved by
the Administrator. As a result, the SIP provides for such air quality
modeling as the Administrator has prescribed.
    12. Permitting fees: Section 110(a)(2)(L) requires SIPs to require
the owner or operator of each major stationary source to pay to the
permitting authority, as a condition of any permit required under this
act, a fee sufficient to cover--

    (i) the reasonable costs of reviewing and acting upon any
application for such a permit, and
    (ii) if the owner or operator receives a permit for such source,
the reasonable costs of implementing and enforcing the terms and
conditions of any such permit (not including any court costs or
other costs associated with any enforcement action), until such fee
requirement is superseded with respect to such sources by the
Administrator's approval of a fee program under [title] V.

    a. Utah's response to this requirement: The State's submissions for
the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 infrastructure requirements cite SIP
Section I (Legal Authority). A.1.h., codified at R307-110-2 (approved
by EPA in the early 1980's and most recently on June 25, 2003 at 68 FR
37744) which authorizes a fee to major sources to cover permit and
enforcement expenses.
    b. EPA Analysis: Utah's SIP meets the requirements of CAA section
110(a)(2)(L) for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Final
approval of Utah's title V operating permit program was given by EPA on
June 8, 1995 (60 FR 30192). As discussed in the notice proposing
approval of the title V program (60 FR 15105, Mar. 22, 1995), the State
demonstrated that the fees collected were sufficient to administer the
program. As mentioned by Utah in its submissions, the State is also
authorized to collect fees from major stationary sources to cover
permit and enforcement expenses.
    13. Consultation/participation by affected local entities: Section
110(a)(2)(M) requires states to provide for consultation and
participation in SIP development by local political subdivisions
affected by the SIP.
    a. Utah's response to this requirement: The State's submissions for
the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 infrastructure requirements cite SIP
Section VI (Intergovernmental Cooperation), codified at R307-110-7
(approved by EPA in the early 1980s and most recently on June 25, 2003
at 68 FR 37744), which lists federal, state, and local agencies
involved in protecting air quality in Utah; and SIP Section XII
(Transportation Conformity Consultation), codified at R307-110-20,
which establishes the consultation procedures on transportation
conformity issues when preparing state plans. EPA approved SIP Section
XII, Involvement, but it has been superseded by SIP Section XII,
Transportation Conformity Consultation, which was submitted to EPA on
June 26, 2007, but has not been approved by EPA.
    b. EPA Analysis: Utah's submittal meets the requirements of CAA
section 110(a)(2)(M) for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.

VI. What action is EPA taking?

    In this action, EPA is proposing to approve the following CAA
section 110(a)(2) infrastructure elements for the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS: (A), (B), (C) with respect to minor NSR and PSD
requirements, (D)(i)(II) with respect to PSD requirements, (E)(i),
(E)(iii), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and (M). EPA proposes to
disapprove the section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) infrastructure element for the
1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. We propose to approve the
following portions of the State's March 14, 2012 submission to address
the 2008 PM2.5 NSR Implementation Rule and the 2010
PM2.5 Increment Rule; specifically we propose to approve the
adoption of the text of 40 CFR 52.21, paragraphs (b)(14)(i),(ii),(iii);
(b)(15)(i),(ii); (b)(23)(i); (b)(50) and paragraph (c) as they existed
on July 1, 2011. Finally, EPA is taking no action on infrastructure
elements (D)(i)(I), interstate transport of pollutants which contribute

significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by,
any other state, and (D)(i)(II), with respect to visibility
requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS as EPA is acting
separately on these elements.

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    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, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
proposed action merely approves some state law as meeting federal
requirements and disapproves other state law because it does not meet
federal requirements; this proposed action 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 (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 rule 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,
Intergovernmental relations, Greenhouse gases, Incorporation by
reference, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic
compounds, Incorporation by reference.

    Dated: August 8, 2013.
Shaun L. McGrath,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2013-20662 Filed 8-22-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 117 (Tuesday, June 20, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 39799-39801]
[FR Doc No: 2023-12364]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2023-0456]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Lake Erie, Cleveland, OH

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is proposing to establish an annually
recurring safety zone for certain waters of Lake Erie. This action is
necessary to provide for the safety of life on these navigable waters
near Cleveland, OH, during the Tri CLE Rock and Roll Run. This proposed
rulemaking would prohibit persons and vessels from being in the safety
zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo or a
designated representative. We invite your comments on this proposed
rulemaking.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before July 20, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2023-0456 using the Federal Decision-Making Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See the ``Public Participation and Request for
Comments'' portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further
instructions on submitting comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions about this
proposed rulemaking, call or email LT Jared Stevens, Waterways
Management Division, MSU Cleveland, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 216-
937-0124, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis

    On April 19, 2023, Tri CLE Rock Roll Run notified the Coast Guard
that it will be sponsoring a triathlon on August 11 and 12, 2023, and
then again annually on or around the second or third weekend in August
every year after. The triathlon is to take place in the North Coast
Harbor and into the West Basin Channel in Cleveland, OH. The Captain of
the Port Buffalo (COTP) has determined that a safety zone covering
navigable waters and tributaries of Lake Erie within the North Coast
Harbor and the West Basin Channel in Cleveland, OH, is needed to
protect participants during the swimming portion of the triathlon.
    The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the safety of
participants and the navigable waters within the course of the swimming
portion of the triathlon before, during, and after the scheduled marine
event. The Coast Guard is proposing this rulemaking under authority in
46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231).

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    The COTP is proposing to establish a permanent safety zone in order
to protect participants during the swimming portion of the triathlon.
The safety zone would cover all navigable waters and tributaries of
Lake Erie within the North Coast Harbor and immediately adjacent waters
in Cleveland, OH; the boundaries of the safety zone would form a
rectangle with the four corners of the polygon located in the following
positions: (1) 41[deg]30'41'' N, 081[deg]42'01'' W; (2) 41[deg]30'47''
N, 081[deg]41'53'' W; (3) 41[deg]30'32'' N, 081 41'39'' W; (4) 41[deg]
30'27'' N, 081[deg]41'47'' W. The duration of the zone is intended to
ensure the safety of participants in these navigable waters before,
during, and after the swim portion of the Tri CLE Rock Roll Run
triathlon. The event will then reoccur on an annual basis on or around
the second or third weekend in August. Exact dates and times of
enforcement will be made public via notice of enforcement prior to the
event date. No vessel or person would be permitted to enter the safety
zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated
representative. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end
of this document.

IV. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes
and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our
analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and
we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. This NPRM has not been designated a

``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866.
Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB).
    This regulatory action determination is based on size, location,
and duration of the proposed rule. This safety zone would restrict
navigation through the swimming area for 7.5 hours on one day.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this
proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic
impact on any vessel owner or operator.
    If you think that your business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed rule
would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment
(see ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it qualifies and how and to
what degree this rule would economically affect it.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the proposed rule
would affect your small business, organization, or governmental
jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or
options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will not
retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this
proposed rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

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

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing
instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series),
which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made
a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of
actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves the
establishment of a safety zone lasting 7.5 hours that would prohibit
entry in, out or through North Coast Harbor on August 11 and 12, 2023,
and then again annually on or around the second or third weekend in
August thereafter. Normally such actions are categorically excluded
from further review under paragraph L63(b) of Appendix A, Table 1 of
DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A preliminary Record of
Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available
in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the
ADDRESSES section of this preamble. We seek any comments or information
that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact
from this proposed rule.

G. Protest Activities

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

V. Public Participation and Request for Comments

    We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking
and will consider all comments and material received during the comment
period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If
you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this
rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which
each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or
recommendation.
    Submitting comments. We encourage you to submit comments through
the Federal Decision-Making Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. To
do so, go to https://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-2023-0456 in the
search box and click ``Search.'' Next, look for this document in the
``Search Results'' column, and click on it. Then click on the
``Comment'' option. If you cannot submit your material by using https://www.regulations.gov, call or email the person in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this proposed rule for alternate
instructions.
    Viewing material in docket. To view documents mentioned in this
proposed rule as being available in the docket, find the docket as
described in the previous paragraph, and then select ``Supporting &
Related Material'' in the Document Type column. Public comments will
also be placed in our online docket and can be viewed by following
instructions on the https://www.regulations.gov Frequently Asked

Questions web page. Also, if you click on the Dockets tab and then the
proposed rule, you should see a ``Subscribe'' option for email alerts.
The option will notify you when comments are posted, or a final rule is
published.
    We review all comments received, but we will only post comments
that address the topic of the proposed rule. We may choose not to post
off-topic, inappropriate, or duplicate comments that we receive.
    Personal information. We accept anonymous comments. Comments we
post to https://www.regulations.gov will include any personal
information you have provided. For more about privacy and submissions
to the docket in response to this document, see DHS's eRulemaking
System of Records notice (85 FR 14226, March 11, 2020).

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is
proposing to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority:  46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051, 70124; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-
1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
00170.1, Revision No. 01.3.

0
2. In Sec.  165.939, amend the table by revising its heading and adding
entry (c)(7) to read as follows:

Sec.  165.939   Safety Zones; Annual Events in the Captain of the Port
Buffalo Zone.

* * * * *

                        Table 1 to Sec.   165.939
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Enforcement date
             Event                   Location \1\         and time \2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         (c) August Safety Zones
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              * * * * * * *
(7) Tri CLE Rock Roll Run.....  Cleveland, OH. All      On or around the
                                 U.S. waters of Lake     2nd or 3rd
                                 Erie; Cleveland         weekend of
                                 Harbor, from position   August.
                                 (1) 41[deg]30'41'' N
                                 081[deg]42'01'' W, to
                                 (2) 41[deg]30'47'' N
                                 081[deg]41'53'' W, to
                                 (3) 41[deg]30'32'' N
                                 081 41'39'' W, to (4)
                                 41[deg]30'27'' N
                                 081[deg]41'47'' W,
                                 then return to
                                 original position
                                 (NAD 83).

                              * * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All coordinates listed in Table 165.xxx reference Datum NAD 1983.
\2\ As noted in paragraph (a)(3) of this section, the enforcement dates
  and times for each of the listed safety zones are subject to change.
  In the event of a change, or for enforcement periods listed that do
  not allow a specific date or dates to be determined, the Captain of
  the Port will provide notice to the public by publishing a Notice of
  Enforcement in the Federal Register, as well as, issuing a Broadcast
  Notice to Mariner.]

    Dated: May 31, 2023.
M.I. Kuperman,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Buffalo.
[FR Doc. 2023-12364 Filed 6-16-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 131 (Tuesday, July 9, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 32763]
[FR Doc No: 2019-14586]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4429-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2019-0001]

Mississippi; Amendment No. 3 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for State of Mississippi (FEMA-4429-DR), dated April 23, 2019, and
related determinations.

DATES: This change occurred on June 6, 2019.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Jose M. Girot,
of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for
this disaster.
    This action terminates the appointment of Lai Sun Yee as Federal
Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

    The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers
(CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030,
Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance
Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and
Households in Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049,
Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing
Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other
Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially
Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Pete Gaynor,
Acting Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2019-14586 Filed 7-8-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 90 (Thursday, May 9, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 27113]
[FR Doc No: 2013-10956]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 90 / Thursday, May 9, 2013 / Proposed
Rules

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

18 CFR Part 40

[Docket No. RM13-5-000]

Version 5 Critical Infrastructure Protection Reliability
Standards

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Energy.

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Rulemaking; correction.

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

SUMMARY: This document contains corrections to the proposed rule (RM13-
5-000) which was published in the Federal Register of Wednesday, April
24, 2013 (78 FR 24107). The regulations proposed to approve certain
reliability standards proposed by the North American Electric
Reliability Corporation.

DATES: Effective on June 24, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin Ryan (Legal Information), Office
of the General Counsel, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First
Street NE., Washington, DC 20426, Telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Errata Notice

    On April 18, 2013, the Commission issued an ``Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking'' in the above-captioned proceeding, Version 5 Critical
Infrastructure Protection Reliability Standards, 143 FERC ] 61,055
(2013).
    This errata notice serves to correct P 119 and the table in P 124.
Specifically, in P 119, the reference to ``CIP version 4'' in the fifth
line is changed to ``CIP version 5.'' In addition, in the table in P
124, the ``Total Burden Hours in Year 2'' estimate is changed to
``1,162,788 hrs'' and the ``Total Burden Hours in Year 3'' estimate is
changed to ``757,948 hrs.''
    In FR Doc. 2013-09643 appearing on page 24107 in the Federal
Register of Wednesday, April 24, 2013, the same corrections are made:
    1. On page 24121, the reference to ``CIP version 4'' in the fifth
line is changed to ``CIP version 5.''
    2. On page 24122, the ``Total Burden Hours in Year 2'' estimate is
changed to ``1,162,788 hrs'' and the ``Total Burden Hours in Year 3''
estimate is changed to ``757,948 hrs.''

    Dated: May 3, 2013.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2013-10956 Filed 5-8-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P