A.	Justification

1.	Necessity of Information Collection

On January 21, 2009, President Obama signed a memorandum on Transparency
and Open Government.  The memorandum directed Departments and Agencies
to promote transparency by using new technologies, by increasing
opportunities to participate in policymaking, and by expanding
collaboration among Agencies, across governments, and with external
groups and individuals.

The eRulemaking Program, an inter-agency program led by the
Environmental Protection Agency and authorized under Section 206 of the
Electronic Government Act of 2002, operates   HYPERLINK
"http://www.regulations.gov"  www.regulations.gov  .  Regulations.gov is
a citizen-focused website that provides the public the ability to find,
view, download, bookmark, receive email alerts, establish RSS feeds, and
submit comments on proposed rulemakings and other federal actions that
solicit public comment.  Regulations.gov currently provides access to
more than 2 million documents, supports 32 partner Departments and
Agencies which promulgate more than 90% of the federal government’s
annual rulemakings, and receives millions of hits and tens of thousands
of comments each month.  Since September 2005, Regulations.gov has
received more than 250 million hits and received more than 750,000
public comments.

In response to the Presidential memorandum, the eRulemaking Program
plans to launch the Regulations.gov ‘feedback exchange’ web site in
May 2009.  This interactive web site will showcase new technologies
being considered for Regulations.gov.   The ‘feedback exchange’ will
serve as an online environment for open government and transparency, as
it enables the public to provide direct input on future improvements to
the Regulations.gov interface, promotes innovation and collaboration,
and ensures that the eRulemaking Program can efficiently manage federal
resources by testing new tools before they are launched.

What will it do?   The Regulations.gov ‘feedback exchange’ website
will provide the public with a preview of new technologies being
considered for Regulations.gov.   It will also enable the public to
provide feedback on these technologies.  Technologies that could be
considered for the Regulations.gov ‘feedback exchange’ include: User
Profiles; Comment Threads and Wikis; Ratings, Polls, and Tagging; an
interactive Educational Tool; and an Information Export capability.
These technologies would be deployed iteratively, with components
deployed upon the site’s release in May 2009 and during subsequent
upgrades to the web site.   User profiles enable the public to register
on the site and pre-load submitter information for later use as well as
save their own personalized searches, RSS feeds, and email alerts
without the use of persistent cookies.  Comment Threads allow the public
to enter into virtual conversations with one another about a topic.
Wikis enable the public to collaboratively develop and modify narrative
descriptions about a topic.   Ratings and Polls allow the public to
indicate a preference for a topic or issue via the selection of stars or
thumbs up / thumbs down icons which graphically provide an at-a-glance
indication of public sentiment and can simplify navigation.   Tagging
provides the public with the ability to tag or label information they or
someone else has posted to the site to ease navigation and to promote
the formation of common interest categories.   The Educational Tool will
inform the public about the Federal rulemaking process through
interactive text and images.  The Data Export capability enables the
public to download and review the contents of a rulemaking docket as
well as mix and match such information with other information in a new
way (also known as a “mash-up”).  The Regulations.gov “feedback
exchange” will rely on feedback from Government, Industry, Academia
and Citizenry to improve Regulations.gov as time goes on.

What are the Benefits?  As part of the president's pledge to make the
government more open and transparent, the Regulations.gov “feedback
exchange” web site will be the citizen's back stage pass to shape and
drive the evolution of the federal government’s premier public access
rulemaking web site.  Citizens will be able to participate in an open
dialogue on the design, format, and functionality of Regulations.gov.
Sitting in the director’s chair, the public will be able to clearly
identify and see other ideas on the kinds of new Internet technologies
it would like Regulations.gov to use to access, participate in, and
understand federal rulemaking.

The ‘feedback exchange’ also can serve as a laboratory to explore
the statutory and policy impacts of emerging Internet technologies on
the federal rulemaking process, fostering innovative approaches to
involve citizens in federal decision-making.   Enhancing access to
rulemaking information through new forms of communication and
collaboration can help transform government and realize the vision of
and open and transparent government by "democratizing" regulatory
decisions.  The site will be continuously operated and maintained to
freely interact and solicit feedback with the Public to promote
innovation through engagement.

Finally, the Regulations.gov ‘feedback exchange’ will conserve
taxpayer resources through a low-cost, controlled approach to pilot and
evaluate new technologies before they are deployed on the live
Regulations.gov web site.

What information collections are needed?  This emergency information
collection request is being submitted in order to fulfill the citizen
engagement and feedback aspects of this important initiative.  The end
users will be provided opportunities to provide information feedback and
ratings in fulfillment of the President’s open government and
transparency agenda.  This emergency information collection request will
enable these capabilities to be included on the Regulations.gov
‘feedback exchange’.  The administration has established a timeline
for the delivery of the Regulations.gov ‘feedback exchange’ by May
2009.  The emergency information collection request is required to meet
the administration’s timeline of the May 2009 release of the
Regulations.gov ‘feedback exchange’ website.  The four elements
addressed in this emergency information collection request are a five
star or a thumbs up / thumbs down rating system, a request for user
email address on the registration section, support for the ability of
users to tag or label content on the site, and support for the ability
of users to enter text into a support or oppose comment form.

The eRulemaking Program and its 32 partner Departments and Agencies plan
to include a rating capability within the Regulations.gov ‘feedback
exchange’ website to allow the public to rate site functionalities
that are proposed by the federal government for Regulations.gov.  The
rating capability will allow for a more open government to citizen
interaction in alignment with the President’s memorandum titled
“Transparency and Open Government,” dated January 21, 2009.

Rating  The rating system seeks to give visitors the ability to identify
which topics or functionalities and user comments visitors found most
useful and interesting.  The ability to provide ratings on Internet
sites is commonplace and routine for web sites that provide information,
allow public browsing, support public interaction, and enable
categorization. Ratings provided by users would not be in response to
specific questions, but rather would solicit the users’ reaction to a
topic or specific functionality.  A rating of 1 star would indicate a
low priority or preference for a topic or functionality while a rating
of 5 stars would indicate a high priority or preference for a topic or
functionality.   Site visitors could then view the top rated topics or
system functionalities ranked by other users (for example, a visitor
could view the top five highest rated functionalities or the top five
highest rated visitor comments).

Registration  The web site registration capability seeks to give
visitors the ability to establish ‘profiles’ on the site to support
user-defined tailoring of information and features to meet his or her
needs.  Registration is common and routine for web sites that provide
information, allow public browsing, support public interaction, and
enable categorization.  For the Regulations.gov ‘feedback exchange’,
visitors will be able to voluntarily register on the site by providing
their email address and a user name.

Tagging  The tagging or labeling capability seeks to give visitors the
ability to self-identify information about themselves (e.g.,
Professional Category, such as ‘Academic / Professor”) or to label
or categorize information they provided or others provided.  Tagging is
common and routine for web sites that provide information, allow public
browsing, support public interaction, and enable categorization. For the
Regulations.gov ‘feedback exchange’, visitors will be able to
voluntarily select tags or labels about themselves and create tags about
information they have submitted or others have submitted.

Support or Oppose Comment Form  The ‘support or oppose’ comment form
seeks to give visitors the ability to enter comments that are
categorized as ‘support’ or ‘oppose’. These fields enable
categorization of comments.  For the Regulations.gov ‘feedback
exchange’, visitors will be able to voluntarily enter text in comment
fields labeled ‘support’, ‘oppose’ or ‘general’ and which
are viewable by other visitors as such.

2.	Needs and Uses

The ratings information collected from the public will help the
eRulemaking Program, the Office of Management and Budget, and the
Program’s partner Agencies understand how potential features presented
on the Regulations.gov ‘feedback exchange’ are valued by
respondents.  It is the intention of the eRulemaking Program team to
leverage the rating responses to provide feedback to the public as to
how the possible new functionalities and tools are collectively viewed
by those choosing to rate them.  The information will not be used to
generalize to all users or potential users.

The email address collection on the Registration section is part of the
registration process to enable site visitors to provide comments, rate
content, or tag information. The email address field is required for
registration. During the system registration and user profile set-up
process, to satisfy security requirements, users receive a dynamic,
temporary URL to link back to the system and complete the user profile
registration. This security feature is required in order to log-in to
the system and use the user profile, due to the fact that federal
government websites cannot utilize persistent cookies. Users have the
option to sign up for e-mail notifications. The e-mail address required
for system registration is used for e-mail notifications only if the
user chooses to receive e-mail notifications  Topic discussions and
comments can still be viewed by those users who choose not to register.

The information collected for tagging or the support / oppose comments
will be used by registered users to further categorize comments when
viewing information in the system. When users self-identify themselves,
it enables the eRulemaking Program to stratify and better understand the
needs of different user groups.  This is a common method to gauge and
understand customer feedback, for example, the American Customer
Satisfaction Index.

3.	Efforts to Minimize Burden

To limit respondent burden, the rating questions are short, require only
a response of one star through five stars or a thumbs up / thumbs down,
and are purely voluntary.  The public is not required to provide its
ratings.  For those in the public who decide to participate, the
abbreviated list of questions and potential responses simplifies their
participation.

To limit the public’s burden on the site, users only need to provide
their email address to be able to submit comments, rate content, and tag
information and receive e-mail notifications.

Participation on the ‘favor or oppose’ comment form is not required
and can be completed on a voluntary basis.  Additionally, the form is
defined as a single field brief and makes use of selection boxes to
minimize the amount of text required to be entered for submission.

Participation on the tagging or labeling functionality is not required
and can be completed on a voluntary basis.  Additionally, the form makes
use of selection boxes to minimize the amount of text required to be
entered for submission.

4.	Efforts to Identify Duplication

Ratings relate specifically to possible new functionalities and tools
considered for   HYPERLINK "http://www.regulations.gov"
www.regulations.gov  and do not duplicate what other agencies are doing.
 This is a new capability that does not exist within any other
inter-agency rulemaking and public notice and comment portals.  The
email address field on the Registration section enabling users to create
a user account is a new capability that does not exist within any other
rulemaking and public notice and comment portals.   Similarly, the
tagging or labeling functionality and the ‘favor or opposed’ comment
form are new capabilities that do not exist within any other
inter-agency rulemaking and public notice and comment portals.

5.	Minimizing Burden on Small Businesses

Small businesses are not specific targets of the Regulations.gov
‘feedback exchange’ rating efforts or information collection
efforts.  However, if they visit the Regulations.gov ‘feedback
exchange’ website they will be presented with the opportunity to
provide ratings, register on the site, submit narrative statement
feedback in favor of or opposed to a topic, and tag or label information
about themselves or a topic.  We ensure that rating questions and icons,
registration form, and tagging and labeling capabilities are not
redundant and include only requests for information relevant to the
specific data sets on the ‘feedback exchange’.

6.	Consequences of Less Frequent Collection

This clearance involves establishing a single type of rating to be used
for possible functionalities and tools on Regulations.gov, an email
address field on the Registration section, fields allowing the public to
submit feedback in favor or opposed to a topic, and fields enabling the
public to tag or label information about themselves or a topic.  The
voluntary responses to these information collection opportunities will
determine the frequency of the information collection.

7.	Consistency with OMB Guidelines

The Environmental Protection Agency, as managing partner of the
inter-agency eRulemaking Program, will collect the information in a
manner that complies with OMB guidelines.

Pursuant to 5 CFR 1320.13(d) EPA requests a waiver of the Federal
Register requirement for an emergency processing ICR.

8.	Consultation Outside the Agency

The inter-agency eRulemaking Program has conferred with the Office of
Management and Budget, its 32 partner Departments and Agencies,
including the Program’s managing partner, to determine that the
ratings approach is desired, within scope of the Regulations.gov
‘feedback exchange’ project, and in alignment with the
Administration’s transparency and open government memorandum.

The eRulemaking Program also has conferred with the Office of Management
and Budget and its 32 partner Departments and Agencies to determine that
the email address field on the Registration section, fields allowing the
public to submit feedback in favor or opposed to a topic, and fields
enabling the public to tag or label information about themselves or a
topic are all desired, within scope of the Regulations.gov ‘feedback
exchange’, and will provide value to the public.

9.	Paying Respondents

The federal government will not provide payment or other forms of
remuneration to respondents to its Regulations.gov ‘feedback
exchange’ information collections.

10.	Assurance of Confidentiality

The Regulations.gov ‘feedback exchange’website will not provide
visitors with any assurance of confidentiality.

11.	Justification for Sensitive Questions

Questions are carefully composed and structured to avoid being sensitive
in nature to respondents.

12.	Estimate of Hour Burden

For the ratings, it is estimated that 5,000 ratings will be submitted,
on an annualized basis.  Each of the ratings is estimated to take 5
seconds and therefore it is anticipated that 417 minutes per year will
be required to submit the data set ratings.  Approximately 7 annual
burden hours are requested based on these estimations.  Based upon
similar ratings methods, we believe that this is an accurate estimate.

For the email address field on the Registration form, it is estimated
that 1,000 user profiles will be created each year.  It is estimated
that completing the email address field on the contact form will take 10
seconds and therefore it is anticipated that 167 minutes per year will
be required to submit the email address field on the contact form.
Approximately 3 annual burden hours are requested based on these
estimations.  Based upon similar contact form methods, we believe that
this is an accurate estimate.

For the tagging of content, it is estimated that 1,000 tags will be
submitted each year.  It is estimated that completing the tag will take
30 seconds and therefore it is anticipated that 500 minutes per year
will be required to submit the nomination form.  Approximately 8 annual
burden hours are requested based on these estimations.  Based upon
similar form methods, we believe that this is an accurate estimate.

For the submission of support or oppose comments, it is estimated that
1,000 support or oppose comments will be submitted each year.  It is
estimated that completing the nomination form will take 1 minute and
therefore it is anticipated that 1,000 minutes per year will be required
to submit the nomination form.  Approximately 17 annual burden hours are
requested based on these estimations.  Based upon similar form methods,
we believe that this is an accurate estimate.

Therefore the total burden for this ICR is 35 hours (7 hours for
ratings, 3 hours for email address, 8 hours for tagging content, and 17
hours for completing support or oppose comments).  The total number of
respondents is 7,000 and the total number of responses is 7,000.

13.	Estimate of Cost Burden

We do not expect respondents to incur any costs other than that of
their time expended.  The information requested is of the type and scope
normally provided online and without additional research time required.
Therefore, respondents are not expected to incur any costs or burden for
responding to this voluntary rating procedure.

14.	Cost to Federal Government

Electronic surveys are virtually cost-free.  The Environmental
Protection Agency is incurring no additional costs for hosting the
information collection forms and will incur no additional costs for
storing the anticipated responses.  It is estimated that one federal
staff person will spend two hours a week to review and monitor the
comments posted on the site or total of 104 hours a year. The system
automatically categorizes comments and users.  This information will be
integrated into the existing framework that the eRulemaking Program
utilizes to analyze public feedback.  The average annual Agency cost is
estimated to be $4,600.  This is based on the average hourly labor rate
for a GS-12, step 1 of $44.24.  (This rate is from the Office of
Personnel Management “2008 General Schedule” which excludes locality
rates of pay).

15.	Reason for Change in Burden

This is a new collection so there is no change in burden.

16.	Project Schedule

The Environmental Protection Agency plans to release Regulations.gov
‘feedback exchange’ to the public in May 2009.

17.	Request to Not Display Expiration Date

The Regulations.gov ‘feedback exchange’ requests not displaying the
expiration date since this will be an on-going website.

18.	Exceptions to the Certification

There are no exceptions.

 PAGE

 PAGE   8


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 218 (Tuesday, November 14, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 52680-52682]
[FR Doc No: 2017-24554]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2017-0935]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Delaware River; Marcus Hook, NJ

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to establish a temporary safety zone
on the waters of the Delaware River between Marcus Hook Range and
Tinicum Range. The safety zone will temporarily restrict vessel traffic
from transiting or anchoring in portions of the Delaware River while
rock blasting, dredging, and rock removal operations are being
conducted to facilitate the Main Channel Deepening project for the
Delaware River. The safety zone is needed to protect personnel,
vessels, and the marine environment from hazards created by rock
blasting, dredging, and rock removal operations. Entry of vessels or
persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by
the Captain of the Port (COTP) or his designated representatives. We
invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.

DATES: Comments and related material must be received by the Coast
Guard on or before November 21, 2017.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
2017-0935 using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://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
rulemaking, call or email Petty Officer Amanda Boone, Waterways
Management Branch, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Delaware Bay; telephone
(215) 271-4889, email [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port
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

    The Army Corps of Engineers notified the Coast Guard that Great
Lakes Dredging and Dock Company will be conducting rock blasting,
dredging, and rock removal operations, beginning November 30, 2017
through March 15, 2018, to facilitate the deepening of the main
navigational channel to the new project depth of 45 feet. The COTP has
determined that potential hazards associated with rock blasting,
dredging, and rock removal operations will be a safety concern for
anyone within 500 yards of the drill boat APACHE or dredges TEXAS and
NEW YORK.
    The purpose of this proposed rulemaking is to ensure the safety of
personnel, vessels, and the marine environment within a 500-yard radius
of rock blasting, dredging, and rock removal operations. The Coast
Guard proposes this rulemaking under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231.

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule

    This proposed rule would establish a safety zone from November 30,
2017 through March 15, 2018. The safety zone will cover all navigable
waters in the Delaware River within 500 yards of vessels and machinery
being used by personnel to conduct rock blasting, dredging, and rock
removal operations between Marcus Hook Range and Tinicum Range. The
safety zone will be enforced in an area and in a manner that does not
conflict with transiting commercial and recreational traffic, except
for the short periods of time when explosive detonation are being
conducted. The explosive detonation will not occur more than three
times a day. At all other times, at least one side of the main
navigational channel will be open for vessels to transit.
    The duration of the zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels,
and the marine environment in these navigable waters while operations
are being conducted. For the duration of the project, in the vicinity
of the rock blasting, rock removal, and dredging operation, one side of
the main navigational channel will be closed. Vessels wishing to
transit the safety zone in the main navigational channel may do so if
they can make satisfactory passing arrangements with drill boat APACHE
or the dredges TEXAS and NEW YORK in accordance with the Navigational
Rules in 33 CFR subchapter E via VHF-FM channel 13 at least 30 minutes
prior to arrival. If vessels are unable to make satisfactory passing
arrangements with the drill boat APACHE or the dredges TEXAS and NEW
YORK, they may request permission from the COTP, or his designated
representative, on VHF-FM channel 16. All vessels must operate at the
minimum safe speed necessary to maintain steerage and reduce wake.
    No vessels may transit through the safety zone during times of
explosive detonation. During explosive detonation, vessels will be
required to maintain a 500 yard distance from the drill boat APACHE.
The drill boat APACHE will make broadcasts via VHF-FM channels 13 and
16, at 15 minutes, 5 minutes, and 1 minute prior to detonation, as well
as a countdown to detonation on VHF-FM channel 16. Sector Delaware Bay
will ensure notice is given to the maritime community of dates and
times of blasting via broadcast notice to mariners on VHF-FM channel
16. After every explosive detonation, a survey will be conducted to
ensure the navigational channel is clear for vessels to transit. The
drill boat APACHE will broadcast via VHF-FM channel 13 and 16, when the
survey has been completed and the channel is clear to transit. Vessels
wishing to transit the safety zone in the main navigational channel may
do so if they can make satisfactory passing arrangements with drill
boat APACHE or the dredges TEXAS and NEW YORK in accordance with the
Navigational Rules in 33 CFR subchapter E via VHF-FM channel 13 at
least 30 minutes prior to arrival. If vessels are unable to make
satisfactory passing arrangements with the drill boat APACHE or the
dredge TEXAS and NEW YORK, they may request permission from the COTP,
or his designated representative, on VHF-FM channel 16.

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. Executive Order 13771 directs agencies to control
regulatory costs through a budgeting process. 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), and pursuant to OMB guidance it is exempt
from the requirements of Executive Order 13771.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, duration, and traffic management of the safety zone. The
Coast Guard does not anticipate a significant economic impact because
the safety zone will be enforced in an area and in a manner that does
not conflict with transiting commercial and recreational traffic,
except for the short periods of time when explosive detonations are
being conducted. The blasting detonations will not occur more than
three times a day. At all other times, at least one side of the main
navigational channel will be open for vessels to transit. Moreover, the
Coast Guard will work in coordination with the pilots to ensure vessel
traffic is limited during the times of detonation and Broadcast Notice
to Mariners are made via VHF-FM marine channel 13 and 16 when blasting
operations will occur.

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 anchor in or
transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated
in section IV.A above, this rule will 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 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 rule would affect
your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you
have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance,
please contact 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 contact 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 effects of this rule
elsewhere in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland
Security Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction
M16475.lD, which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (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 a safety
zone that would prohibit entry within 500 yards of rock blasting,
dredging, and rock removal. Normally such actions are categorically
excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of
Commandant Instruction M16475.lD. A preliminary Record of Environmental
Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket
where indicated under ADDRESSES. 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 contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places, or vessels.

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.
    We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking
Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. If your material cannot be
submitted using http://www.regulations.gov, contact the person in the
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document for alternate
instructions.
    We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted
without change to http://www.regulations.gov and will include any
personal information you have provided. For more about privacy and the
docket, visit http://www.regulations.gov/privacyNotice.
    Documents mentioned in this NPRM as being available in the docket,
and all public comments, will be in our online docket at http://www.regulations.gov and can be viewed by following that Web site's
instructions. Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up
for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted or a
final rule is published.

List of Subjects 33 CFR Part 165

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

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes
to amend 33 CFR 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 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1,
6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T05-0935, to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T05-0935   Safety Zone, Delaware River; Marcus Hook, PA

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: all the
navigable waters of the Delaware River within 500 yards of vessels and
machinery performing rock blasting, rock removal, and dredging
operations, between Marcus Hook Range and Tinicum Range.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section:
    (1) Designated representative means any Coast Guard commissioned,
warrant, or petty officer who has been authorized by the Captain of the
Port to assist with enforcement of the safety zone described in
paragraph (a) of this section.
    (c) Regulations. (1) Vessels wishing to transit the safety zone in
the main navigational channel may do so if they can make satisfactory
passing arrangements with the drill boat APACHE or the dredges TEXAS
and NEW YORK, as applicable, in accordance with the Navigational Rules
in 33 CFR subchapter E via VHF-FM channel 13 at least 30 minutes prior
to arrival. If vessels are unable to make satisfactory passing
arrangements with the drill boat APACHE or the dredges TEXAS and NEW
YORK, they may request permission from the Captain of the Port, or his
designated representative, on VHF-FM channel 16.
    (2) The operator of any vessel requesting to transit through the
safety zone shall proceed as directed by the drill boat APACHE, the
dredges TEXAS and NEW YORK, or the designated representative of the
Captain of the Port and must operate at the minimum safe speed
necessary to maintain steerage and reduce wake.
    (3) No vessels may transit through the safety zone during times of
explosive detonation. During explosive detonation, vessels will be
required to maintain a 500 yard distance from the drill boat APACHE.
The drill boat APACHE will make broadcasts, via VHF-FM Channel 13 and
16, at 15 minutes, 5 minutes, and 1 minute prior to detonation, as well
as a countdown to detonation on VHF-FM Channel 16.
    (4) After every explosive detonation a survey will be conducted by
the dredging contractor to ensure the navigational channel is clear for
vessels to transit. The drill boat APACHE will broadcast, via VHF-FM
channel 13 and 16, when the survey has been completed and the channel
is clear to transit. Vessels requesting to transit through the safety
zone shall proceed as directed by the Captain of the Port and contact
the drill boat APACHE on VHF-FM channel 13 to make safe passing
arrangements.
    (d) Enforcement. The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted by federal,
state and local agencies in the patrol and enforcement of the zone.
    (e) Enforcement period. This rule will be enforced from December
01, 2017, through March 15, 2018, unless cancelled earlier by the
Captain of the Port.

    Dated: November 7, 2017.
Scott E. Anderson,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Delaware Bay.
[FR Doc. 2017-24554 Filed 11-13-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 142 (Thursday, July 23, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44477-44478]
[FR Doc No: 2020-15122]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration

49 CFR Part 191

[Docket No. PHMSA-2016-0016; Amdt. No. 191-28]
RIN 2137-AF22

Pipeline Safety: Safety of Underground Natural Gas Storage
Facilities; Correction

AGENCY: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA),
DOT.

ACTION: Correcting amendments.

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

SUMMARY: The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA) published a final rule in the Federal Register on February 12,
2020, amending PHMSA's regulations establishing minimum safety
standards for underground natural gas storage facilities. That document
inadvertently removed certain reporting requirements for natural gas
pipeline operators. This document corrects the final regulations.

DATES: Effective on July 23, 2020.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ashlin Bollacker, Technical Writer,
Office of Pipeline Safety, at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On February 12, 2020, PHMSA published a
final rule titled: ``Safety of Underground Natural Gas Storage
Facilities.'' (85 FR 8104). The final rule contained an error that
inadvertently removed two paragraphs from the current regulations. This
document corrects the unintended deletion.
    The final rule revised Sec.  191.22 to add new reporting
requirements for underground natural gas storage facilities (UNGSF).
However, in adding those new reporting requirements for UNGSF
facilities, a pair of reporting

requirements for natural gas pipeline operators at paragraphs (c)(1)(v)
and (c)(1)(vi) was inadvertently removed from Sec.  191.22.
    This document amends Sec.  191.22 to reinstate paragraphs (c)(1)(v)
and (c)(1)(vi).

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 191

    Underground natural gas storage facility reporting requirements.

    In consideration of the foregoing, PHMSA is amending 49 CFR part
191 as follows:

PART 191--TRANSPORTATION OF NATURAL AND OTHER GAS BY PIPELINE;
ANNUAL REPORTS, INCIDENT REPORTS, AND SAFETY-RELATED CONDITION
REPORTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 191 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 30 U.S.C. 185(w)(3), 49 U.S.C. 5121, 60101 et seq.,
and 49 CFR 1.97.

0
2. Amend Sec.  191.22 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (c)(1)(iii) and (iv); and
0
b. Adding paragraphs (c)(1)(v) and (vi).
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

Sec.  191.22   National Registry of Operators.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iii) Construction of a new LNG plant, LNG facility, or UNGSF;
    (iv) Maintenance of a UNGSF that involves the plugging or
abandonment of a well, or that requires a workover rig and costs
$200,000 or more for an individual well, including its wellhead. If 60-
days' notice is not feasible due to an emergency, an operator must
promptly respond to the emergency and notify PHMSA as soon as
practicable;
    (v) Reversal of product flow direction when the reversal is
expected to last more than 30 days. This notification is not required
for pipeline systems already designed for bi-directional flow; or
    (vi) A pipeline converted for service under Sec.  192.14 of this
chapter, or a change in commodity as reported on the annual report as
required by Sec.  191.17.
* * * * *

    Issued in Washington, DC, on July 8, 2020, under authority
delegated in 49 CFR 1.97.
Howard R. Elliott,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2020-15122 Filed 7-22-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 117 (Tuesday, June 20, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 39801-39803]
[FR Doc No: 2023-12747]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R07-OAR-2023-0279; FRL-10989-01-R7]

Air Plan Approval; Missouri; Revisions to the Cross-State Air
Pollution Rule SO2 Group 1 Trading Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing
approval of revisions to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted
on November 29, 2021, by the State of Missouri. Missouri requests EPA
approve revisions to a state regulation related to the Cross-State Air
Pollution Rule SO2 Group 1 Trading Program. These revisions
include reallocating SO2 emission allowances from a recently
retired emission unit to the original emission unit for which they were
designated. Additionally, the revisions clarify rule language by
condensing a list of provisions excluded from incorporation by
reference. Approval of these revisions will not impact air quality and
ensures Federal enforceability of the State's rules. The EPA is
proposing to approve these SIP revisions in accordance with the
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 20, 2023.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-
OAR-2023-0279 to www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions
for submitting comments.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID
No. for this rulemaking. Comments received will be posted without
change to www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided. For detailed instructions on sending comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the ``Written Comments''
heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gerald McIntyre, Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 7 Office, Air Permitting and Planning Branch,
11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219; telephone number: (913)
608-8349; email address: [email protected].

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

Table of Contents

I. Written Comments
II. Background
III. What is being addressed in this document?
IV. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?
V. What action is the EPA taking?
VI. Incorporation by Reference
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Written Comments

    Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R07-OAR-2023-
0279, at www.regulations.gov. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited
or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment
received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions
(audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The
written comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance
on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

II. Background

    The Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) addresses air pollution
from upwind states that crosses state lines and affects air quality in
downwind states. CSAPR requires fossil fuel-fired electric generating
units at coal-, gas-, and oil-fired facilities in 27 states, including
Missouri, to reduce emissions to help downwind areas attain fine
particle and/or ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
    EPA sets a pollution limit (emission budget) for each of the states
covered by CSAPR. Authorizations to emit pollution, known as
allowances, are allocated to affected sources based on these state
emissions budgets. The rule provides flexibility to affected sources,
allowing sources in each state to determine their own compliance path.
This includes adding or operating control technologies, upgrading or
improving controls, switching fuels, and using allowances. Sources can
buy and sell allowances and bank (save) allowances for future use as
long as each source holds enough allowances to account for its
emissions by the end of the compliance period. Allowance transfers
between sources within the CSAPR SO2 Group 1 Trading Program
are allowed with the approval of the Administrator, subject to the
procedures and requirements of 40 CFR part 97.
    Missouri adopted EPA's SO2 Group 1 Trading Program in 40
CFR 97.604 through 40 CFR 97.628, with certain exceptions, in 10 Code
of State Regulations (CSR) 10-6.376. EPA finalized its approval of 10
CSR 10-6.376 into Missouri's SIP on December 4 2019, thereby granting
Missouri the responsibility to implement the CSAPR SO2
Annual Trading Program in Missouri (see 84 FR 66316). 10 CSR 10-6.376
includes a list of CSAPR SO2 Group 1 units and their
corresponding allowances that have been allocated to each unit.
    Iatan Generating Station Unit 1 (Iatan Unit 1) is owned by two
electric utility companies: Evergy, formerly Kansas City Power and
Light Company; and Liberty Utilities, formerly Empire District
Electric. Asbury Power Plant (Asbury) is owned by Liberty Utilities.
These sources have been allocated CSAPR SO2 Group 1
allowances in 10 CSR 10-6.376. In 2015, Missouri revised 10 CSR 1--
6.376 to reallocate 1,300 SO2 emission allowances from Iatan
Unit 1 to Asbury based on ownership share. Asbury was retired in March
2020. Therefore, Missouri revised 10 CSR 10-6.376 to transfer Asbury's
1,300 SO2 emission allowances back to Iatan Unit 1, and has
requested that EPA approve the revision to 10 CSR 10-6.376 into
Missouri's SIP.

III. What is being addressed in this document?

    The EPA is proposing to approve a SIP revision submitted by the
State of Missouri on November 29, 2021. Missouri requests the EPA to
approve revisions to 10 CSR 10-6.376 in the Missouri SIP. The state has
revised the rule to reallocate 1,300 SO2 emission allowances
from the Asbury Power Plant, which was retired in March 2020, to Iatan
Unit 1, which is the original emission unit for which the
SO2 allowances were allocated. This revision will only
reverse the 2015 reallocation of the 1,300 SO2 emission
allowances from Iatan Unit 1 to Asbury. The total SO2
allowances for Iatan Unit 1 will increase from 9,833 to 11,133. The
total SO2 allowances for Asbury will decrease from 4,480 to
3,180. Asbury's remaining 3,180 allowances will be transferred to the
new unit set-aside and redistributed, as is the case for any unit that
retires under CASPR.
    Missouri has also clarified rule language by removing redundant
language concerning provisions excluded from incorporation by
reference. This revision also removes a provision that excluded
incorporation by reference of any requirements imposed on any unit in
Indian country within the borders of any state in 40 CFR 97.602 through
40 CFR 97.635. These revisions are administrative in nature and does
not impact the stringency of the SIP or air quality.

IV. Have the requirements for approval of a SIP revision been met?

    The State submission has met the public notice requirements for SIP
submissions in accordance with 40 CFR 51.102. The submission also
satisfied the completeness criteria of 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. The
State provided public notice on this SIP revision from April 15, 2021
to May 27, 2021 and received no comments.
    In addition, as explained above, the revision meets the substantive
SIP requirements of the CAA, including section 110 and implementing
regulations. The EPA proposes to find that the changes to the SIP do
not reduce the stringency of the SIP or negatively affect air quality.
As such, in accordance with section 110(l) of the CAA, this proposed
revision does not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning
attainment and reasonable further progress or any other applicable
requirement of the CAA. Therefore, the EPA is proposing to approve
Missouri's revisions to 10-6.376.

V. What action is the EPA taking?

    The EPA is proposing to amend the Missouri SIP by approving the
State's request to revise 10 CSR 10-6.376 ``Cross-State Air pollution
Rule Annual SO2 Group 1 Trading Program.'' We are processing
this as a proposed action because we are soliciting comments on this
proposed action. Final rulemaking will occur after consideration of any
comments.

VI. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, the EPA is proposing to include regulatory text
in an EPA final rule that includes incorporation by reference. In
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to
incorporate by reference Missouri 10 CSR 10-6.376, discussed in section
III of this preamble and as set forth below in the proposed amendments
to 40 CFR part 52. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these
materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and at the
EPA Region 7 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more
information).

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Clean Air Act
and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:

     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act;
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    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.
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.'' 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.''
    Missouri did not evaluate environmental justice considerations as
part of its SIP submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing
regulations neither prohibit nor require such an evaluation. EPA did
not perform an EJ analysis and did not consider EJ in this action.
Consideration of EJ 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.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

     Dated: June 9, 2023.
Meghan A. McCollister,
Regional Administrator, Region 7.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA proposes to amend
40 CFR part 52 as set forth below:

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 AA-Missouri

0
2. In Sec.  52.1320, the table in paragraph (c) is amended by revising
the entry ``10-6.376'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1320  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                        EPA-Approved Missouri Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             State
        Missouri citation                 Title         effective date   EPA approval date       Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Missouri Department of Natural Resources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
     Chapter 6-Air Quality Standards, Definitions, Sampling and Reference Methods, and Air Pollution Control
                                      Regulations for the State of Missouri
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
10-6.376.........................  Cross-State Air           7/29/2021  [Date of             ...................
                                    Pollution Rule SO2                   publication of the
                                    Group 1 Trading                      final rule in the
                                    Program.                             Federal Register],
                                                                         [Federal Register
                                                                         citation of the
                                                                         final rule].

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2023-12747 Filed 6-16-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCYREGION III

1650 Arch Street

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania  19103-2029

SUBJECT:	Technical Support Document-Commonwealth of Virginia-Norfolk
Southern Corporation RACT Permit

EPA-R03-OAR-2008-0333

  FORMTEXT        	  FORMTEXT

FROM:

	Ellen Wentworth  /s/

  FORMTEXT

TO:

	File

THRU:	Cristina Fernandez, Branch Chief    /s/

Air Quality Planning Branch

Date:		     April 30, 2008

I.  Background

Prior to the final establishment of the 8-hour ozone nonattainment
areas, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) developed a program to
allow potential nonattainment areas to voluntarily adopt local emission
control programs to avoid air quality violations and mandated
nonattainment area controls.  Areas with air quality meeting the 1-hour
ozone standard were eligible to participate.  In order to participate,
state and local governments and EPA developed and signed a memorandum of
agreement that described the local control measures the state or local
communities intended to adopt and implement in order to reduce ozone
emissions in advance of air quality violations.  In this agreement, also
known as an Early Action Compact (EAC), the state or local community
agreed to prepare emission inventories and conduct air quality modeling
and monitoring to support is selection of emission controls.  Areas that
participated in the EAC program had the flexibility to institute their
own approach in maintaining clean air and protecting public health.

Several localities in the Winchester and Roanoke, VA areas elected to
participate in the EAC program.  The areas that signed an EAC are the
City of Winchester and Frederick County, which comprise the Northern
Shenandoah Valley EAC, and the Cities of Roanoke and Salem, and the
Counties of Roanoke and Botetourt, which comprise the Roanoke EAC.
Virginia’s strategy for enabling these localities to participate in
the EAC program was to have them be subject to volatile organic compound
(VOC) and nitrogen oxide (NOx) control measures from which they had
previously been exempt.  In order to enable the affected localities to
implement these VOC and NOx controls, the Regulations for the Control
and Abatement of Air Pollution were revised to include these affected
localities.  As a result, the list of VOC and NOx emissions control
areas (9 VAC 5-20-206) was expanded to include the EAC areas as the
Western Virginia Emissions Control Area (70 FR 21625).  By doing so, the
VOC and NOx control regulations of Chapter 40 became applicable in these
areas.  In order to implement the NOx control measures, the Virginia
Department of Environmental Quality (VADEQ) adopted a regulation (Rule
4-4)  which provides that VADEQ must, on a case-by-case basis, determine
whether there is Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) to
reduce NOx emissions from major sources for which EPA has not issued a
control technique guideline (CTG).  A major source in the Western
Virginia Emissions Control Area emits or has the potential to emit 100
tons per year of NOx.  CTGs are documents issued to define RACT for a
particular source category.  RACT is the lowest emission limit that a
particular source is capable of meeting by the application of control
technology that is reasonably available considering technological and
economic feasibility.

The following sources in the Western Virginia Emissions Control Area
have been identified as sources subject to the RACT requirements:  (1)
Roanoke Electric Steel Corporation Steel Mill located in the City of
Roanoke, (2) Roanoke Cement Company Portland Manufacturing Plant,
located in Troutville, County of Botetourt, (3) Norfolk Southern Railway
Company-East End Shops, located in the City of Roanoke, and (4) Global
Stone Chemstone Corporation located in Frederick County.

On April 27, 2005 (70 FR 21621), EPA issued a direct final rulemaking
establishing and requiring NOx RACT via permits for the above four major
sources.

II.  Summary of SIP Revision

On February 11, 2008, the Commonwealth of Virginia submitted a revision
to its SIP stating that since the time of EPA’s approval of the NOx
RACT requirements for the Norfolk Southern Railway Company rail car and
locomotive maintenance facility, located in Roanoke, Virginia, many of
the units at the facility were permanently shut down, including those
that were previously subject to the NOx RACT requirements of permit No.
20468.  VADEQ is requesting that EPA remove permit no. 20468 from the
Commonwealth of Virginia SIP, since these sources are no longer in
operation and have permanently shut down.

The sources previously subject to NOx RACT according to permit no. 20468
include the following:  Unit ID # 8-01-B & W Stirling coal-fired
spreader stoker boiler; Unit ID # 8-02-B & W Stirling coal-fired
spreader stoker boiler; Unit ID # 8-03-B & W Stirling coal-fired
spreader stoker boiler; Unit ID #8-04-Zurn Energy coal-fired spreader
stoker boiler; Unit ID # 43-03-15 open-front oil-fired metal heating
furnances; and Unit ID # 51-13/14-one 13-ton capacity electric arc
furnace.

The February 11, 2008 SIP revision consists of mutual agreements between
the VADEQ and Norfolk Southern Corporation for permanent shutdowns for
these RACT-subject sources in accordance with 9 VAC 5-20-220, Shutdown
of a Stationary Source:  Unit ID # 8-01 through 8-03 B&W coal-fired
boilers were permanently shutdown as per the permanent shutdown
agreement between VADEQ and the Northern Southern Corporation, dated
August 20, 2007 (see attached agreement); Unit ID # 8-04 B&W coal-fired
boiler, Unit ID # 43-03, 15 open-front oil-fired metal heating furnaces,
and Unit # 15-13/14-one 13-ton capacity electric arc furnace were
permanently shutdown as per the permanent shutdown agreement between
VADEQ and the Northern Southern Corporation, dated June 22, 2005. (see
attached agreement).

III.  EPA’s Analysis of the Commonwealth Request

VADEQ’s regulation 9 VAC 5-20-220 gives the Commonwealth of Virginia
authority, upon determination that a stationary source or emissions unit
is shutdown permanently, to revoke any permits by written notification
to the owner and removing the stationary source or emissions unit from
the emission inventory or consider its emissions to be zero in any air
quality analysis conducted.  In addition, the stationary source or
emissions unit cannot commence operation without a permit being issued
under the applicable provisions of 9 VAC 5-80-10, et seq. (Permits for
Stationary Sources).  The mutual shutdown agreements of September 9,
2005 and August 20, 2007 comply with the requirements of 9 VAC 5-20-220
and 9 VAC 5-80-10.  The Commonwealth’s state operating permit
regulations also require, in accordance with subsection L of 9 VAC
5-80-1210 (Permit Invalidation, Suspension, Revocation and Enforcement),
that “nothing in the regulations of the board shall be construed to
prevent the board and the owner from making a mutual determination that
a permit is rescinded because all of the statutory or regulatory
requirements (i) upon which the permit is based or (ii) that
necessitated issuance of the permit are no longer applicable.” The
RACT permit No. 20468, provision 15 under General Conditions, grants the
Virginia State Air Pollution Control Board (“Board”) the authority
to modify, rewrite or amend the permit in accordance with the
regulations of the Board and the Administrative Process Act (§2.2-4000
et seq).  However, a repeal of the NOx RACT permit for Norfolk Southern
Railway Company would not be effective until the revision or repeal is
approved by EPA.

:

<

>

@

N

t

~

€

‚

¢

6

ä

<

<

>

@

€

‚

¢

)ion units have permanently shutdown as demonstrated by the attached
mutual shutdown agreements, EPA recommends that the RACT requirements
for the above named units be removed from the Virginia SIP.

 The non-CTG RACT determination requirements have since been removed
from Rule 4-4 and relocated to a new Rule 4-51.

 PAGE

 PAGE   3