MEMORANDUM

DATE: 11/24/14

FROM: 		Ken Mitchell/EPA Region 4

TO:CLEAN POWER PLAN FOR EXISTING POWER PLANTS; DOCKET ID: OAR - 2013-0602

SUBJECT:DISCUSSION OF THE CLEAN POWER Plan at the Fall Meeting of the EPA Region 4 State and Local Air Directors

SUMMARY:
EPA REGION 4 Provided information on the Clean Power Plan to participants at the Fall Meeting of
the EPA Region 4 State and Local Air Directors in Chattanooga, TN, on October 29, 2014.  The Clean
Power Plan for Existing Power Plants was proposed on June 2, 2014.
ATTENDEES:

EPA
Jeaneanne Gettle/EPA Region 4
Ken Mitchell/EPA Region 4
Other Region 4 staff

External Stakeholders
John Myers/TVA
Jenah Zweig/SEEA
Jeremy Tarr/Duke Nicholas Institute
John Hornback/Metro4-SESARM
EPA Region 4 State and Local Air Directors, including VA (see attached list)

ATTACHMENT


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 6 (Thursday, January 9, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 1608-1612]
[FR Doc No: 2013-31561]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0285; FRL-9905-08-Region 4]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Tennessee;
Conflict of Interest and Notice of Finding of Disapprovals

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule and notice of disapproval.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking three actions pertaining to the infrastructure
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) for the State of
Tennessee. First, EPA is providing notice of its findings of
disapproval for a sub-element of the Tennessee infrastructure state
implementation plans (SIPs) for the 2008 Lead National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS), 1997 Annual Fine Particulate Matter
(PM2.5) NAAQS, 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS. Specifically, EPA is providing notice of the
disapproval of the previously conditionally-approved portion of the
State board and conflict of interest requirements of the infrastructure
SIPs for these NAAQS. These disapprovals were triggered automatically
on July 23, 2013, when Tennessee failed to submit revisions to address
the CAA State board and conflict of interest requirements within the
timeframes specified in EPA's conditional approval

actions. Second, EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revision submitted
by Tennessee, through the Tennessee Department of Environment and
Conservation (TDEC) on October 9, 2013, as meeting the applicable
requirements of the Act. This SIP revision addresses Tennessee's
outstanding obligations related to the CAA State board and conflict of
interest requirements. Finally, EPA is proposing to approve the
infrastructure SIP sub-element related to the State board and conflict
of interest requirements for the 2008 Lead, 1997 annual
PM2.5, 2006 24-hour PM2.5, and 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. Approval of these infrastructure SIP requirements for the listed
NAAQS would result in the disapprovals noticed above for this sub-
element being converted to approvals. Final approval of these
infrastructure SIP sub-elements, however, is contingent upon final
approval of the underlying October 9, 2013, SIP revision to address the
CAA requirements also proposed through this action. EPA notes that all
other applicable Tennessee infrastructure elements for the 2008 Lead,
1997 annual PM2.5, 2006 24-hour PM2.5, and 1997
8-hour ozone NAAQS have been addressed in separate rulemakings.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before February 10,
2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2012-0285, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: ``EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0285,'' Regulatory Development Section,
Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae Benjamin, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such deliveries are
only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation.
The Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through
Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-
2012-0285. 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 through www.regulations.gov or
email, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected.
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.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean Lakeman, Regulatory Development
Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth
Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is (404)
562-9043. Mr. Lakeman can be reached via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background
II. Section 110(a)(2)(E) Adequate Resources Requirements
III. Notice of Disapproval
IV. EPA's Analysis of Tennessee's Conflict of Interest Submission
V. EPA's Analysis Supporting the Proposed Approval of Sub-element
110(a)(2)(E)(ii)
VI. Proposed Action
VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    By statute, SIPs meeting the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and
(2) of the CAA are to be submitted by states within three years after
promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS. Sections 110(a)(1) and (2)
require states to address basic SIP requirements, including emissions
inventories, monitoring, and modeling to assure attainment and
maintenance of the NAAQS.
    More specifically, section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and
timing requirements for SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements
that states must meet for ``infrastructure'' SIP requirements related
to a newly established or revised NAAQS. As mentioned above, these
requirements include SIP infrastructure elements such as modeling,
monitoring, and emissions inventories that are designed to assure
attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. On July 23, 2012 (77 FR
42997), August 2, 2012 (77 FR 45958), and June 18, 2013 (78 FR 36440),
EPA approved in part, and conditionally approved in part, Tennessee's
infrastructure SIPs for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, 1997 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS, 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and 2008
Lead NAAQS respectively.

II. Section 110(a)(2)(E) Adequate Resources Requirements

    EPA conditionally approved a portion of the Tennessee
infrastructure SIP submissions addressing the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS,
1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS
and 2008 Lead NAAQS. Specifically, EPA conditionally approved the
portion of section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) respecting Act's section 128(a)(1)
requirements (hereafter ``sub-element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)'')

for each of the above NAAQS. Sub-element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) provides that
each infrastructure SIP shall provide requirements ``that the State
comply with the requirements respecting State board under section [128
of the CAA]. . . .'' Section 128 in turn provides that each SIP shall
contain requirements that: (1) Any board or body which approves permits
or enforcement orders under the CAA shall have at least a majority of
members who represent the public interest and do not derive a
significant portion of their income from persons subject to permits or
enforcement orders under the Act (hereafter ``section 128(a)(1)
requirements''); and, (2) any potential conflicts of interest by
members of such board or body or the head of an executive agency with
similar powers be adequately disclosed (hereafter ``section 128(a)(2)
requirements.'') EPA was unable to fully-approve Tennessee's
infrastructure submissions for the above NAAQS with respect to sub-
element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) because, at the time, the SIP did not include
provisions to address the section 128(a)(1) requirements.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The section 128(a)(2) conflict of interest disclosure
requirements, however, were met by existing provisions in the
Tennessee SIP. See 77 FR 42997, page 42998; 77 FR 45958, 45960; and
78 FR 36440, 36442.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On, March 28, 2012, TDEC transmitted a letter to EPA, committing to
adopt specific enforceable measures into its SIP by July 23, 2013, to
address the applicable portions of section 128(a)(1). In Tennessee's
March 28, 2012, letter, TDEC committed to bring its SIP into conformity
with section 128(a)(1) of the CAA by submitting a SIP revision that
designated at least a majority of the positions on the State's Air
Pollution Control Board \2\ as being subject to the ``public interest''
requirement. In addition, TDEC committed to submitting a SIP revision
establishing requirements to ensure that at least a majority of the
members on the State's Air Pollution Control Board do not derive any
significant portion of their income from persons subject to CAA permits
or enforcement orders. TDEC also described in the letter that its
planned restrictions related to the ``significant portion of income''
requirement of section 128 would include an exclusion for the official
salaries of mayors of counties and municipalities, and for faculty
members employed by institutions of higher learning.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The composition of Tennessee's Air Pollution Control Board
is statutorily prescribed at Tennessee Code Annotated 68-201-104.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Notice of Disapproval

    EPA's conditional approval authority is provided at section
110(k)(4) of the CAA. Consistent with the requirements for EPA's
exercise of the conditional approval authority, the commitment from
Tennessee provided that the State would adopt the specified enforceable
provisions and submit a revision to EPA for approval within one year of
final action of the conditional approval.\3\ As described at section
110(k)(4), and as noted by EPA in its conditional approval actions,
failure by the State to adopt the specified provisions and submit them
to EPA for incorporation into the SIP by July 23, 2013, would result in
the conditional approvals being treated as disapprovals. Tennessee
failed to meet the July 23, 2013, commitment; therefore, the
conditional approvals automatically became disapprovals on that date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ EPA's initial final action to conditionally approve sub-
element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) occurred on July 23, 2012. Therefore,
Tennessee's commitment to submit the specific enforceable measures
necessary to comply with section 128(a)(1) requirements was due no
later than July 23, 2013. See 77 FR 42997.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA was not required to propose a finding of disapproval in order
for the conditional approvals to convert to disapprovals. However, the
Agency is hereby notifying the public of the finding of disapprovals
for Tennessee's 2008 Lead NAAQS, 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS,
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
infrastructure SIPs as they relate to the sub-element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)
requirements respecting section 128(a)(1) requirements.
    Under section 179(a) of the CAA, final disapproval of a submittal
that addresses a requirement of a Part D Plan (42 U.S.C. 7501-7515) or
is required in response to a finding of substantial inadequacy as
described in section 7410(k)(5) (SIP call) starts a sanctions clock.
Sub-element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requirements are not submitted pursuant to
Part D requirements, and therefore, no sanctions will be triggered by
Tennessee's failure to submit SIP revisions for these requirements. The
disapprovals do however trigger the requirement under section 110(c)
that EPA promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) no later than 2
years from the date of the disapproval unless the State corrects the
deficiency, and the Administrator approves the plan or plan revision
before the Administrator promulgates such FIP.
    In this rulemaking, EPA is also proposing to approve Tennessee's
October 9, 2013, SIP revision to address the section 128(a)(1) CAA
requirements. Provided that EPA finalizes approval of TDEC's October 9,
2013, SIP revision, on or before July 23, 2015 (two years from the date
Tennessee's sub-element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) conditional approvals
converted to disapprovals), Tennessee will have corrected the
infrastructure SIP deficiencies and a FIP for sub-element
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) will not be necessary.
    As stated above, this notice of disapproval is limited to the
section 128(a)(1) requirements and the associated sub-element
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requirements of Tennessee's infrastructure SIPs for
the 2008 Lead NAAQS, 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 NAAQS and 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. All other
applicable aspects of these infrastructure SIPs have been addressed in
separate rulemakings. See July 23, 2012 (77 FR 42997), August 2, 2012
(77 FR 45958), and June 18, 2013 (78 FR 36440).

IV. EPA's Analysis of Tennessee's Conflict of Interest Submission

    TDEC's October 9, 2013, SIP revision repeals Chapter 1200-3-17
moving the contents to a new Chapter 0400-30-17--Conflict of Interest,
and adds a new section 0400-30-17-.02 Protecting the Public Interests
and 0400-30-17-.05 Policy of Ethics and the Avoidance of Conflicts of
Interest. EPA is proposing to approve this change because the Agency
has preliminarily determined that, once approved into the Tennessee
SIP, this change will address the section 128(a)(1) requirements that
any board or body which approves permits or enforcement orders have at
least a majority of members who represent the public interest and not
derive a significant portion of their income from persons subject to
permits or enforcement orders under the Act. As noted above, TDEC
submitted the October 9, 2013, SIP revision to meet the requirements
outlined in EPA's conditional approvals published on July 23, 2012 (77
FR 42997), August 2, 2012 (77 FR 45958), and June 18, 2013 (78 FR
36440), for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS, 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and the 2008 Lead NAAQS
respectively.
    Specifically, TDEC's revision would incorporate a new rule into its
SIP to address section 128(a)(1) requirements. Rule 0400-30-17-.02
Protecting the Public Interests contains definitions and requirements
that will enable the Board to clearly determine if it has a majority of
members who represent the public interest and do not derive a
significant portion of their income from persons subject to permits or
enforcement orders

under the Act. The intent of rule 0400-30-17-.02 is to ensure that at
least half of the Board serves in the public interest and does not
derive significant income from person subject to permits or enforcement
orders under the Act. Pursuant to these provisions, in the event the
Tennessee Air Pollution Control Board is unable to determine that it is
comprised consistent with the requirements of section 128(a)(1), the
revisions prevent the Board from hearing contested cases until such
time as it complies with the requirements of section 128.
    TDEC is also revising sections 0400-30-17-.01 Purpose and Intent
(formally 1200-3-17-.01), 0400-30-17-.03 Conflict of Interest on the
Part of the Board and Technical Secretary (formally 1200-3-17-.02) and
0400-30-17-.04 Conflict of Interest in the Permitting of Municipal
Solid Waste (formally 1200-3-17-.03) of the SIP and adding two new
sections to address protecting the public interest and conflict of
interest (0400-30-17-.02 Protecting the Public Interests and 0400-30-
17-.05 Policy of Ethics and the Avoidance of Conflicts of Interest).
EPA has preliminarily determined that these revisions, once approved
into the SIP, will be sufficient to meet the State's obligations
pursuant to the requirements of CAA section 128(a)(1).

V. EPA's Analysis Supporting the Proposed Approval of Sub-Element
110(a)(2)(E)(ii)

    Sub-element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requires that the state comply with
the requirements respecting State Boards pursuant to section 128 of the
Act. With respect to sub-element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), EPA reviews
infrastructure SIP submissions to ensure that the SIP includes SIP-
approved provisions satisfying section 128 requirements. As previously
discussed, Tennessee's SIP includes provisions respecting the section
110(a)(2) requirements, and following approval of the October 9, 2013,
SIP revision to address section 128(a)(1) requirements, would fully
meet the applicable section 128 requirements for the State.
    Accordingly, EPA is hereby proposing to approve sub-element
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) with respect to the applicable section 128(a)(1)
requirements for the 2008 Lead NAAQS, 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS, 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
Final action to approve this infrastructure SIP sub-element for the
above NAAQS is contingent upon approval of the October 9, 2013, SIP
revision into the Tennessee SIP. Should that approval be finalized, EPA
anticipates finalizing the sub-element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) approvals
concurrently through the same approval notice.

VI. Proposed Action

    EPA is notifying the public of findings of disapprovals for
Tennessee's 2008 Lead NAAQS, 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, 2006
24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
infrastructure SIP sub-element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) requirements as they
relate to section 128(a)(1) requirements. EPA conditionally approved
this portion of Tennessee's infrastructure submissions for these NAAQS
on July 23, 2012, August 2, 2013, and June 18, 2013. Tennessee failed
to meet the July 23, 2013, submission deadline associated with these
commitments, therefore, the conditional approvals automatically
converted to disapprovals on that date. EPA is not required to propose
a finding for these disapprovals; however, the Agency is providing the
public with notice of these findings through this action. Provided EPA
finalizes approval of the October 9, 2013, SIP revision to address the
section 128(a)(1) requirements, the Agency intends to fully approve the
section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) sub-element of Tennessee's infrastructure SIP
for the 2008 Lead NAAQS, 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS, 2006 24-
hour PM2.5 NAAQS and 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, and thereby,
convert the disapprovals noticed through this action into approvals.
    As described above, EPA is also proposing to approve Tennessee's
October 9, 2013, SIP revision, as addressing applicable CAA section
128(a)(1) requirements. Specifically, EPA is proposing to approve
Tennessee's new Chapter 0400-30-17 Conflict of Interest which replaces
Chapter 1200-03-17 in its entirety.
    Finally, EPA is proposing to approve infrastructure SIP sub-element
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) as it relates to section 128(a)(1) requirements for
purposes of the 2008 Lead NAAQS, 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS,
2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS in
Tennessee. Final approval of the section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) sub-element
for these NAAQS is contingent upon approval of the section 128(a)(1)
requirements SIP revision also proposed for approval through this
action.
    EPA notes that the subject of this notice is limited to the section
128(a)(1) requirements and the associated infrastructure SIP sub-
element 110(a)(2)(E)(ii). All other applicable Tennessee infrastructure
SIP elements for the 2008 Lead NAAQS, 1997 annual PM2.5
NAAQS, 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS and 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS
have been addressed in separate rulemakings.

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. See 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 state law as meeting federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed rule 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, Intergovernmental
relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: December 20, 2013.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2013-31561 Filed 1-8-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 172 (Thursday, September 5, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 54576-54578]
[FR Doc No: 2013-21511]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2013-0737]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; LK Events Fireworks; Lake Michigan, Chicago, IL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on
Lake Michigan in Chicago, Illinois. This safety zone is intended to
restrict vessels from a portion of Chicago Harbor due to a fireworks
display. This temporary safety zone is necessary to protect the
surrounding public and vessels from the hazards associated with the
fireworks display.

DATES: This rule is effective and will be enforced from 10 p.m. until
11 p.m. on September 14, 2013.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble are part of docket
USCG-2013-0737. To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type the
docket number in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rulemaking. You may also
visit the Docket Management Facility in Room W12-140 on the ground
floor of the Department of Transportation West Building, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, contact or email MST1 Joseph McCollum, U.S. Coast Guard
Sector Lake Michigan, at<PHONE_NUMBER> or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If
you have questions on viewing the docket, call Barbara Hairston,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Acronyms

DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
TFR Temporary Final Rule

A. Regulatory History and Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing an NPRM with respect to this rule
because doing so would be impracticable and contrary to the public
interest. The final details for this event were not known to

the Coast Guard until there was insufficient time remaining before the
event to publish an NPRM. Thus, delaying the effective date of this
rule to wait for a comment period to run would be both impracticable
and contrary to the public interest because it would inhibit the Coast
Guard's ability to protect spectators and vessels from the hazards
associated with a maritime fireworks display, which are discussed
further below.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this temporary rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register for the same reasons discussed in
the preceding paragraph, waiting for a 30 day notice period to run
would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest.

B. Basis and Purpose

    The legal basis for the rule is the Coast Guard's authority to
establish regulated navigation areas and limited access areas: 33
U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33
CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, 160.5; Public Law 107-295, 116 Stat. 2064;
Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
    On September 14, 2013, LK Events is expected to host a fireworks
display on Lake Michigan in Chicago, Illinois. Fireworks will be
launched from a barge in the vicinity of Burnham Park Harbor. The
Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan, has determined that this fireworks
display will pose a significant risk to public safety and property.
Such hazards include falling debris, flaming debris, and collisions
among spectator vessels.

C. Discussion of the Final Rule

    With the aforementioned hazards in mind, the Captain of the Port,
Lake Michigan, has determined that this temporary safety zone is
necessary to ensure the safety of spectators and vessels during the
fireworks display. This rule is effective and will be enforced from 10
p.m. until 11 p.m. on September 14, 2013.
    The safety zone will encompass all waters of Lake Michigan, Chicago
Harbor within a 900 foot radius of an approximate launch position at
41[deg]52'10.8'' N 87[deg]36'25.1'' W (NAD 83).
    Entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone is
prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan,
or his designated on-scene representative. The Captain of the Port or
his designated on-scene representative may be contacted via VHF Channel
16.

D. Regulatory Analyses

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

1. Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, as
supplemented by Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and
Regulatory Review, and does not require an assessment of potential
costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of Executive Order 12866 or
under section 1 of Executive Order 13563. The Office of Management and
Budget has not reviewed it under those Orders. It is not
``significant'' under the regulatory policies and procedures of the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
    We conclude that this rule is not a significant regulatory action
because we anticipate that it will have minimal impact on the economy,
will not interfere with other agencies, will not adversely alter the
budget of any grant or loan recipients, and will not raise any novel
legal or policy issues. The safety zone created by this rule will be
small and enforced for only one hour on one day in September. Under
certain conditions, moreover, vessels may still transit through the
safety zone when permitted by the Captain of the Port.

2. Impact on Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered the impact of this temporary rule on small entities. The
Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this temporary rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. This rule will affect the following entities, some of
which might be small entities: the owners or operators of vessels
intending to transit or anchor in a portion of Chicago Harbor on
September 14, 2013.
    This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the reasons cited in the
Regulatory Planning and Review section. Additionally, before the
enforcement of the zone, we would issue local Broadcast Notice to
Mariners so vessel owners and operators can plan accordingly.

3. Assistance for Small Entities

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

4. Collection of Information

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

5. Federalism

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on 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 rule under that Order and determined
that this rule does not have implications for federalism.

6. Protest Activities

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

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or

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

8. Taking of Private Property

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

9. Civil Justice Reform

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

10. Protection of Children

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

11. Indian Tribal Governments

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

12. Energy Effects

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' under Executive
Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use.

13. Technical Standards

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

14. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined
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 rule involves the establishment of a safety zone and,
therefore it is categorically excluded from further review under
paragraph 34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An
environmental analysis checklist supporting this determination and a
Categorical Exclusion Determination are 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
rule.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

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

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T09-0737 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T09-0737  Safety Zone; LK Events fireworks; Lake Michigan,
Chicago, IL.

    (a) Location. All waters of Lake Michigan, Chicago Harbor within a
900-foot radius of an approximate launch position at 41[deg]52'10.8''
N, 87[deg]36'25.1'' W (NAD 83).
    (b) Effective and enforcement period. This section is effective and
will be enforced from 10 p.m. until 11 p.m. on September 14, 2013.
    (c) Regulations.
    (1) In accordance with the general regulations in Sec.  165.23 of
this part, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within this safety zone
is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port, Lake
Michigan or his designated on-scene representative.
    (2) This safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may
be permitted by the Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan or his
designated on-scene representative.
    (3) The ``on-scene representative'' of the Captain of the Port,
Lake Michigan is any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or petty officer
who has been designated by the Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan to
act on his behalf.
    (4) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety
zone shall contact the Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan or his on-
scene representative to obtain permission to do so. The Captain of the
Port, Lake Michigan or his on-scene representative may be contacted via
VHF Channel 16. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate
in the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the
Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan, or his on-scene representative.

    Dated: August 22, 2013.
M.W. Sibley,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Lake Michigan.
[FR Doc. 2013-21511 Filed 9-4-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P