[Federal Register: April 14, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 70)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 17084-17086]
[DOCID:fr14ap09-5]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2009-0044]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; San Diego Bay, San Diego, CA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone on the navigable
waters of San Diego Bay in support of the Fireworks Display. This
safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of the participants,
crew, spectators, participating vessels, and other vessels and users of
the waterway. Persons and vessels are prohibited from entering into,
transiting through, or anchoring within this safety zone unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port, or his designated
representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 8:30 p.m. through 9 p.m. on April
21, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-200-9-0044 and are available online
by going to www.regulations.gov, selecting the Advanced docket Search
option on the right side of the screen, inserting USCG-2009-0044 in the
Docket ID box, pressing Enter, and then clicking on the item in the
Docket ID column. They are also available for inspection or copying at
two locations: the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S. Department
of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays, and the U.S. Coast
Guard Sector San Diego, 2710 N. Harbor Drive, San Diego, CA 92101
between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, call Petty Officer Shane Jackson, USCG, Waterways
Management, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Diego at<PHONE_NUMBER>. If you
have questions on viewing the docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program
Manager, Docket Operations, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because immediate action is necessary to
ensure the safety of commercial and recreational vessels in the
vicinity of the fireworks display on the date and times this rule will
be in effect and delay would be contrary to the public interest, since
immediate action is required to ensure the public's safety.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Any delay in the effective date of
this rule would expose mariners to the dangers posed by the
pyrotechnics used in the fireworks display and delay would be contrary
to the public interest.

Background and Purpose

    Fireworks & Stage FX America is sponsoring the Tyco Electronics
Fireworks Display, which will include a fireworks presentation from the
flight deck of the USS Midway in San Diego Bay. The safety zone will
encompass the navigable waters extending out 250 feet from all points
of the USS Midway. This temporary safety zone is necessary to provide
for the safety of the crew, spectators, and other users and vessels of
the waterway.

Discussion of Rule

    The Coast Guard is establishing a safety zone that would be
enforced from 8:30 p.m. to 9 p.m. on April 21, 2009. The limits of the
safety zone will encompass the navigable waters extending out 250 feet
from all points of the USS Midway located at approximately
32[deg]42.52' N, 117[deg]10.35' W.

    The safety zone is necessary to provide for the safety of the
crews, spectators, and other users and vessels of the waterway. Persons
and vessels will be prohibited from entering into, transiting through,
or anchoring within this safety zone unless authorized by the Captain
of the Port or his designated representative.

Regulatory Analyses

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

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order.
    We expect the economic impact of this proposed rule to be so
minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation is unnecessary. This
determination is based on the size and location of the safety zone.
Commercial vessels will not be hindered by the safety zone.
Recreational vessels will not be allowed to transit through the
designated safety zone during the specified times.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
    This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be
small entities: The owners or operators of vessels intending to transit
or anchor in a portion of the San Diego Bay from 8:30 p.m. to 9 p.m. on
April 21, 2009.
    This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This
rule will be in effect for only 30 minutes in the evening when vessel
traffic is low. Vessel traffic can pass safely around the safety zone.
Before the effective period, the Coast Guard will publish a local
notice to mariners (LNM) and will issue broadcast notice to mariners
(BNM) alerts via marine channel 16 VHF before the safety zone is
enforced.

Assistance for Small Entities

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

Collection of Information

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

Federalism

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

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

Taking of Private Property

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

Civil Justice Reform

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

Protection of Children

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

Indian Tribal Governments

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

Energy Effects

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

Technical Standards

    The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards
in their regulatory activities unless the agency provides Congress,
through the Office of Management and Budget, with an explanation of why
using these standards would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are

technical standards (e.g., specifications of materials, performance,
design, or operation; test methods; sampling procedures; and related
management systems practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies.
    This rule does not use technical standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus standards.

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 0023.1 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
that this action is one of a category of actions which do not
individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment. This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1,
paragraph (34)(g), of the Instruction. This rule involves the
establishment of a safety zone for the conduct of a fireworks display
and is necessary in the interests of safety for mariners, spectators,
and persons involved in the display.
    An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 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 temporary Sec.  165.T11-153 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T11-153  Safety Zone; Tyco Electronics Fireworks Display; San
Diego Bay, San Diego, CA.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: the navigable
waters extending out 250 feet from all points of the USS Midway located
at approximately 32[deg]42.52' N, 117[deg]10.35' W.
    (b) Enforcement Period. This section will be enforced from 8:30
p.m. to 9 p.m. on April 21, 2009. If the event concludes prior to the
scheduled termination time, the Captain of the Port will cease
enforcement of this safety zone and will announce that fact via
Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
    (c) Definitions. The following definition applies to this section:
designated representative, means any commissioned, warrant, and petty
officers of the Coast Guard on board Coast Guard, Coast Guard
Auxiliary, or local, state, and federal law enforcement vessels who
have been authorized to act on the behalf of the Captain of the Port.
    (d) Regulations. (1) Entry into, transit through or anchoring
within this safety zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain
of the Port of San Diego or his designated on-scene representative.
    (2) Mariners requesting permission to transit through the safety
zone may request authorization to do so from the Sector San Diego
Command Center. The Command Center may be contacted on VHF-FM Channel
16.
    (3) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of
the Coast Guard Captain of the Port or the designated representative.
    (4) Upon being hailed by U.S. Coast Guard patrol personnel by
siren, radio, flashing light, or other means, the operator of a vessel
shall proceed as directed.
    (5) The Coast Guard may be assisted by other federal, state, or
local agencies.

    Dated: March 6, 2009.
T.H. Farris,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port San Diego.
[FR Doc. E9-8492 Filed 4-13-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P


----- Forwarded by Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US on 08/05/2010 10:30 AM
-----
|------------>
| From:      |
|------------>
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
  |"Bromberg, Kevin L."<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
|
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| To:        |
|------------>
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
  |Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA
|
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| Cc:        |
|------------>
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
  |"Kymn, Christine J."<EMAIL_ADDRESS>"Higgins, Cortney"
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>"Johnson, Nancy"                  |
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Peter
Tsirigotis/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA                                           |
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| Date:      |
|------------>
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
  |08/05/2010 09:33 AM
|
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| Subject:   |
|------------>
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|
  |RE: FW: SI Limited Use engines- Question for Group
|
  >---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------|

“some
transmission lines include small stations that run very infrequently – i.e.,
only operate when there is significant gas demand (or for routine engine
checks) and may not run at all or only a few hours in some years.”

These appear to be non-emergency engines.  And I'm sure if we looked through
more comments we would find more.

I'm making a simple point here - I and EPA don’t have the time/resources to
catalogue all the cats and dogs out there that perform differently - I accept
the fact that they exist - and would prefer that we do the appropriate thing -
and carve out a rule for "limited use" engines below a certain number of hours
to treat like emergency engines.  EPA, in its proposal, didn't propose any
relief for limited engines, so it's not surprising that the record is of
limited help here in refining the appropriate answer.

Let us not forget that in 2005, limited use major source emergency engines of
ANY size had NO requirements whatsoever, so I would think that treating these
engines like emergency engines is a very cautious and protective approach. We
are talking about a very limited number of hours, perhaps 30-50 hours, for
example, and only operating periodically over the years.

EPA is reconsidering what it calls "emergency" demand-side engines anyway
[that label appears odd to me]- so I don't know why EPA shouldn't start
building a record around a more robust solution for this issue, and then take
comment in the future.

At a minimum, EPA should write in the preamble its latest thoughts on limited
use engines, and what possibly should be done to collect more information
about them, and do this in concert with the "emergency"
demand side engines.

-----Original Message-----
From<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2010 9:20 AM
To: Bromberg, Kevin L.
Cc: Kymn, Christine J.; Higgins, Cortney; Johnson, Nancy;
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: Re: FW: SI Limited Use engines- Question for Group

Hi Kevin,
Thanks for passing this information along.  One of the examples that Jim cited
is a fire pump engine, which would be an emergency engine, and therefore
wouldn't have emission limits.  Do you have any more information/data
regarding the typical size of these limited use engines, and the number of
hours per year that they are normally operated?  The issue with black start
engines is that they only operate for ~10 minutes to start up the turbine - do
you have any information/data to show that these other limited use engines are
operated in a similar fashion?

Melanie King
Energy Strategies Group
Sector Policies and Programs Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency

Mail Code D243-01
RTP, NC  27711

Phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>
Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

|------------>
| From:      |
|------------>

>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------|

  |"Bromberg, Kevin L."<EMAIL_ADDRESS>|

>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------|

|------------>
| To:        |
|------------>

>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------|

  |Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA
|

>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------|

|------------>
| Cc:        |
|------------>

>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------|

  |"Higgins, Cortney"<EMAIL_ADDRESS>"Kymn, Christine
J."<EMAIL_ADDRESS>"Johnson, Nancy"                  |
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>|

>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------|

|------------>
| Date:      |
|------------>

>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------|

  |08/04/2010 02:31 PM
|

>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------|

|------------>
| Subject:   |
|------------>

>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------|

  |FW: SI Limited Use engines- Question for Group
|

>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------|

These are the comments on limited use engines (see below).  To respond to
EPA’s question about how limited use engines operate, this is all that we
know:  API Comments 5.4.4, 6.2 and 6.18; INGAA Comment #7.

I can’t justify  requiring performance tests for these engines when it is not
required for black start engines.
As stated below, some of these other engines “as a fire pumps or other
existing units located at a facility that may operate very little depending
upon demand”  which are seldom if ever operated, appear to be
equally deserving of coverage as black start engines.   And “some
transmission lines include small stations that run very infrequently – i.e.,
only operate when there is significant gas demand (or for routine engine
checks) and may not run at all or only a few hours in some years.”  Again, the
emissions that result from testing could exceed the operating emissions for
these engines.

Kevin

From: Jim McCarthy<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Sent: Thursday, July 22, 2010 7:26 PM
To: Bromberg, Kevin L.
Cc: 'Lisa Beal'; 'Jeffrey Panek'<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Subject: RE: SI Limited Use engines- Question for Group

Kevin,

This email follows-up on my brief response earlier this morning, and
references to API and INGAA comments on “limited use” follow. Comments were
submitted recommending Management / Work Practices rather than emission
standards and these engines DO exist.

API June 2009 comments (detailed comments are docket document no.
0242.2) include several references to “limited use” and “intermittent use”
engines, including comments 5.4.4, 6.2 and 6.18.  If you search for “limited
use” in the attached file, you will find those comments, which note that EPA
should retain the limited use subcategory from the original NESHAP, and
recommend exemptions or work practices rather than emissions limits due to the
low operating time for these types of installations.  The comments also note
that EPA has not adequately considered costs, control technology and emission
standard viability, etc for engines that run intermittently.

INGAA June 2009 comments (docket document no. 0155.1) only briefly discuss
“limited use” engines. Comment 7 discusses the need for additional
subcategories (see pdf page 38 of 94 in the attached INGAA
Comments) and includes the following regarding new a subcategory for limited
use engines:

   “Other examples include existing engines with very little run time,
   such as a fire pumps or other existing units located at a facility
   that may operate very little depending upon demand. Depending on the
   engine size, an emission standard will likely apply, – thus requiring
   installation of controls on units that seldom if ever operate. Or, if
   management practices apply, a frequency based on calendar hours would
   require maintenance for an engine that has not operated (discussed
   further in Comment 23). Thus, a subcategory may be warranted for
   engines with limited use.”

The limited used category was in the original NESHAP and EPA appears to be
backing away from that subcategory.  In addition to the comments, I believe
the issue has been raised in discussions with EPA, but it has been a lower
priority item as MACT floor, above the floor, urban versus rural, etc have
been higher priority during the limited time available in
meetings/discussions.  The scenario discussed in the email this morning
discusses one example…  some transmission lines include small stations that
run very infrequently – i.e., only operate when there is significant gas
demand (or for routine engine checks) and may not run at all or only a few
hours in some years.  Those stations are important on high demand days, but
would require emission tests, potentially add-on controls, etc if emission
limits are included in the rule rather than work practices.

Thanks.

 [attachment "0242-2 API RICE NESHAP Comments_060309.pdf" deleted by Melanie
King/RTP/USEPA/US] [attachment "0155-1 INGAA RICE NESHAP Comments_060309.pdf"
deleted by Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US]


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 119 (Thursday, June 20, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28745-28747]
[FR Doc No: 2019-13033]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2017-0583; FRL-9995-30-Region 5]

Air Plan Approval; Illinois; Infrastructure SIP Requirements for
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS; Interstate Transport

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving
elements of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission from
Illinois regarding the infrastructure requirements of section 110 of
the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 2012 annual fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS or
standard). The infrastructure requirements are designed to ensure that
the structural components of each state's air quality management
program are adequate to meet the state's responsibilities under the
CAA. This action pertains specifically to infrastructure requirements
in the Illinois SIP concerning interstate transport provisions.

DATES: This final rule is effective on July 22, 2019.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2017-0583. All documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
through www.regulations.gov or at the Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Samantha Panock, Environmental
Scientist, Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs
Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:

I. What is being addressed by this document?
II. What comments did we receive on the proposed action?
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is being addressed by this document?

    On September 29, 2017, the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(IEPA) submitted a request to EPA for approval of its infrastructure
SIP for the 2012 annual PM2.5 NAAQS. On February 14, 2019,
EPA proposed to approve the portion of the submission dealing with
requirements one and two (otherwise known as ``prongs'' one and two) of
the provision for interstate pollution transport under CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i), also known as the ``good neighbor'' provision.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ There are four prongs to the Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) ``good
neighbor'' provision: (1) Prohibit any source or other type of
emissions activity in one state from contributing significantly to
nonattainment of the NAAQS in another state; (2) prohibit any source
or other type of emissions activity in one state from interfering
with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state; (3) prohibit any
source or other type of emissions activity in one state from
interfering with measures required to prevent significant
deterioration (PSD) of air quality in another state; and (4) protect
visibility in another state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The September 29, 2017 IEPA submittal included a demonstration that
Illinois' SIP contains sufficient major programs related to the
interstate transport of pollution. Illinois' submittal also included a
technical analysis of its interstate transport of pollution relative to
the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. This analysis demonstrated that
current controls are adequate for Illinois to show that it meets prongs
one and two of the ``good neighbor'' provision. After review, EPA
proposed to approve Illinois' request relating to prongs one and two of
the ``good neighbor'' provision.

II. What comments did we receive on the proposed action?

    EPA's February 14, 2019 proposed rule provided a 30-day review and
comment period (84 FR 4025). The comment period closed on March 18,
2019. EPA received one anonymous submission with supportive comments
and one anonymous submission with adverse comments. The adverse
comments and EPA's responses are addressed below.
    Comment: The commenter asserts that EPA's approach to using only
monitoring data to identify receptors for the purposes of evaluating
interstate transport of PM2.5 is ``long standing'' but is
arbitrary and, thus, impermissible because EPA's approach ignores the
fact that direct emissions of PM2.5 can cause high local
ambient concentrations in areas where there are no operating monitors.
    Response: As described in the proposal, EPA has developed a
consistent framework for addressing the prong one and two interstate
transport requirements with respect to the PM2.5 NAAQS in
several previous Federal rulemakings. The four basic steps of that
framework include: (1) Identifying downwind receptors that are expected
to have problems attaining or maintaining the NAAQS; (2) identifying
which upwind states contribute to these identified problems in amounts
sufficient to warrant further review and analysis; (3) for states
identified as contributing to downwind air quality problems,
identifying upwind emissions reductions necessary to prevent an upwind
state from significantly contributing to nonattainment or interfering
with maintenance of the NAAQS downwind; and (4) for states that are
found to have emissions that significantly contribute to nonattainment
or interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS downwind, reducing the
identified upwind emissions through adoption of permanent and
enforceable measures. Regarding identifying potential nonattainment
and/or maintenance receptors (i.e. step one of the framework), EPA
relies primarily on existing monitoring sites and modeling to project
PM2.5 concentrations in future years. This approach to
identifying potential receptors is consistent with how EPA determines
whether an area is attaining or not attaining the PM2.5
NAAQS. For the PM2.5 NAAQS, determinations of attainment are
based primarily on ambient data measured at ambient PM2.5
Federal reference method (FRM) and Federal equivalent method (FEM)
monitors. Although EPA sometimes considers other information for
purposes of evaluating areas with sources that may contribute to
monitored violations, the fundamental basis for evaluating attainment/
nonattainment for a PM2.5 NAAQS is the presence of one or
more FRM or FEM monitors with data showing violations of the NAAQS.
Similarly, for evaluating interstate PM2.5 transport, the
determination of whether there are downwind receptors that are expected
to have problems attaining or maintaining the NAAQS is based on future
year projections of ambient data

measured at the FRM and FEM monitors in the area in question. To
develop data that may be useful for analyzing interstate transport with
respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, EPA examined recent
modeling analyses developed in support of other EPA rules to identify
potential PM2.5 nonattainment and maintenance receptors. The
modeling was used to project design values for the 2012 annual
PM2.5 NAAQS to several future years for each ambient
monitoring site. EPA believes this is a reasonable and consistent
approach for addressing interstate transport for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS, and the commenter has not provided any
information that would cause EPA to change the approach in this action.
    Comment: The commenter asserts that EPA guidance regarding
interstate transport of PM2.5 does not cite any AERMOD
modeling of the impacts of direct emissions of PM2.5, and
thus does not justify EPA's longstanding approach of ignoring this
possibility. The commenter asserts that EPA should apply EPA's approach
for evaluating interstate transport for the 1-hour SO2
NAAQS, which the commenter states has in some cases examined the
evidence regarding specific large, near-border sources of
SO2 emissions, to PM2.5.
    Response: The commenter asserts that EPA should apply EPA's
approach for evaluating interstate transport for the 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS, which may include dispersion modeling using a
model such as AERMOD. As described in the proposal, EPA has established
a consistent framework for addressing the prong one and two interstate
transport requirements with respect to the PM2.5 NAAQS in
several previous Federal rulemakings. As discussed in EPA's 2016
memorandum entitled ``Information on the Interstate Transport `Good
Neighbor' Provision for the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter National
Ambient Air Quality Standards under Clean Air Act Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)'' (2016 memorandum), EPA and states have used a
weight-of-evidence approach to assess PM2.5 transport from a
given state to a given downwind receptor location. A state's submission
for this requirement should provide the technical information that the
state deems appropriate to support its conclusions. Prior guidance and
EPA SIP actions suggest that suitable information might include, but is
not limited to, information concerning emissions in the state,
meteorological conditions in the state and in potentially impacted
states, monitored ambient pollutant concentrations in the state and in
potentially impacted states, distances to the nearest areas not
attaining the NAAQS in other states, and air quality modeling. In
contrast, SO2 is not a regional pollutant and does not
commonly contribute to widespread nonattainment over a large (and often
multi-state) area. Therefore, unlike for PM2.5,
determinations of attainment or nonattainment for the SO2
NAAQS may be based on monitoring data or dispersion modeling data (from
air quality models such as AERMOD) or a combination of both. Therefore,
EPA has adopted a different weight-of-evidence approach for
SO2 transport, which, when available, may include air
dispersion modeling such as AERMOD in addition to other factors such as
ambient monitoring data and source specific analyses. The fact that EPA
has adopted an approach that has a different focus for purposes of
evaluating SO2 transport does not mean that approach is
appropriate for evaluating interstate transport of a regional pollutant
like PM2.5. For these reasons, EPA believes its approach for
addressing the good neighbor provision for the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS is reasonable and consistent with the nature of the interstate
transport of PM2.5 and its precursors. The commenter has not
provided any information that would cause EPA to change its approach in
this action.
    Comment: The commenter asserts that EPA should disapprove Illinois'
submission because the state has failed to provide any analysis to
support the implicit assertion that no large sources of direct
PM2.5 emissions in Illinois and close to the border with
another state are not causing or contributing to PM2.5 NAAQS
violations in the neighboring state. The commenter asserts that in the
absence of any evidence there is transport problem due to direct
emissions of PM2.5, EPA should not be applying a presumption
of innocence. This is particularly true for Illinois, which has many
sources that emit direct PM2.5 (unlike some other states
that mostly have sources that emit only PM2.5 precursors).
    Response: The EPA did not apply a presumption of innocence in
evaluating Illinois' obligations under CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).
Rather, EPA has used a weight-of-evidence approach to assess
PM2.5 transport from a given upwind state to a given
downwind receptor location. The modeling discussed in the 2016
memorandum and referenced in the Illinois SIP considers both primary
(directly emitted) PM2.5 and precursor emissions, the
different processes (e.g., transport and deposition) that affect
primary and secondary (i.e. formed by atmospheric processes) pollutants
at scales and potential receptor locations that are consistent with
determinations of attainment and nonattainment. Therefore, considering
the weight of evidence, EPA has determined that the Illinois analysis
is adequate for their transport SIP for the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS. The commenter does not provide any information that indicates
inconsistency or inadequacy of EPA's approach in this action, nor of
Illinois' submission, which EPA is approving through this action.

III. What action is EPA taking?

    In this action, EPA is approving the portion of Illinois' September
29, 2017 submission certifying that the current Illinois SIP is
sufficient to meet the required infrastructure requirements under CAA
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), specifically prongs one and two, as set
forth above.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (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, 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).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under CAA section 307(b)(1), petitions for judicial review of this
action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the
appropriate circuit by August 19, 2019. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See CAA section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: June 4, 2019.
Cheryl L Newton,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

0
2. In Sec.  52.720, the table in paragraph (e) is amended under the
heading ``Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements'' by adding an
entry at the end of the table for ``2012 PM2.5 NAAQS
Infrastructure Requirements'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.720  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                                           EPA-Approved Illinois Nonregulatory and Quasi-Regulatory Provisions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Applicable geographic
       Name of SIP provision          or  nonattainment         State                 EPA approval date                           Comments
                                             area          submittal date
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS Infrastructure     Statewide............       9/29/2017  6/20/2019, [Insert Federal Register     Fully approving CAA transport
 Requirements.                                                              citation].                              requirements of (D)(i)(I).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2019-13033 Filed 6-19-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 97 (Thursday, May 19, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28895-28897]
[FR Doc No: 2011-12281]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2011-0253]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Ohio River, Sewickley, PA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on
specified waters of the Ohio River in Sewickley, Pennsylvania. The
safety zone is needed to protect the public from the hazards associated
with the Borough of Sewickley fireworks display. Entry into, movement
within, and departure from this Coast Guard safety zone, while it is
activated and enforced, is prohibited, unless authorized by the Captain
of the Port Pittsburg or a designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 8:30 p.m. until 10:15 p.m. on May
27, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Documents indicated in this preamble as being available in
the docket are part of docket USCG-2011-0253 and are available online
by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2011-0253 in the
``Keyword'' box, and then clicking ``Search.'' They are also available
for inspection or copying at the Docket Management Facility (M-30),
U.S. Department of Transportation, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this
temporary rule, call or e-mail Ensign Robyn Hoskins, Marine Safety Unit
Pittsburgh, Coast Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on viewing the docket,
call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, telephone
202-366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory Information

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule. Publishing a NPRM would be impracticable
because immediate action is needed to protect the public due to the
Borough of Sewickley fireworks display that will occur in the city of
Sewickley, PA.
    Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause
exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication in the Federal Register. Publishing an NPRM and delaying
its effective date would be impracticable based on the short notice
received for the event and the short period that the safety zone will
be in place. Immediate action is needed to provide safety and
protection during the Borough of Sewickley fireworks display that will
occur in the city of Sewickley, Pennsylvania.

Basis and Purpose

    The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the Ohio
River from mile marker 11.7 to mile marker 12.0, extending the entire
width of the river. The safety zone is needed to protect the public
from the hazards associated with the Borough of Sewickley fireworks
display.

Discussion of Rule

    The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the Ohio
River from mile marker 11.7 to mile marker 12.0, extending the entire
width of the river. Vessels shall not enter into, depart from, or move
within this safety zone without permission from the Captain of the Port
Pittsburgh or his authorized representative. Persons or vessels
requiring entry into or passage through a safety zone must request
permission from the Captain of the Port Pittsburgh, or a designated
representative. They may be contacted on VHF-FM Channel 13 or 16, or
through Coast Guard Sector Ohio Valley at 1-800-253-7465. This rule is
effective from 8:30 p.m. until 10:15 p.m. on May 27, 2011. The Captain
of the Port Pittsburgh will inform the public through broadcast notices
to mariners of the enforcement period for the safety zone as well as
any changes in the planned schedule.

Regulatory Analyses

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

Regulatory Planning and Review

    This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not
require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section
6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not
reviewed it under that Order.
    This rule will be in effect for a short period of time and
notifications to the marine community will be made through broadcast
notices to mariners. The impacts on routine navigation are expected to
be minimal.

Small Entities

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have
considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities''
comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are
independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields,
and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000.
    The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
    This rule will affect the following entities, some of which may be
small entities: the owners or operators of vessels intending to transit
that portion of the waterways on the Ohio River from mile marker 11.7
to mile marker 12.0.
    This safety zone will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities for the following reasons. This
rule will be enforced for a short period of time, on

a weekend day, and during a time when vessel traffic is low.

Assistance for Small Entities

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

Collection of Information

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

Federalism

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

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

Taking of Private Property

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

Civil Justice Reform

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

Protection of Children

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

Indian Tribal Governments

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

Energy Effects

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

Technical Standards

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

Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have concluded
this action is one of a category of actions which do not individually
or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.
This rule is categorically excluded, under figure 2-1, paragraph
(34)(g), of the Instruction. This rule involves establishing a
temporary safety zone.
    An environmental analysis checklist and a categorical exclusion
determination are available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

    Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. Chapter 701; 50
U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 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.T08-0253 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T08-0253  Safety Zone; Ohio River, Sewickley, PA.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All waters of
the Ohio River from mile marker 11.7 to mile marker 12.0, extending the
entire width of the river. These markings are based on the USACE's Ohio
River Navigation Charts (Chart 1, January 2003).
    (b) Effective date. This rule is effective from 8:30 p.m. until
10:15 p.m. on May 27, 2011.
    (c) Periods of Enforcement. This rule will only be enforced from
8:30 P.M. until 10:15 P.M. on May 27, 2011. The Captain of the Port
Pittsburgh or a

designated representative will inform the public through broadcast
notices to mariners of the enforcement period for the safety zone as
well as any changes in the planned schedule.
    (d) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in
Sec.  165.23 of this part, entry into this zone is prohibited unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port Pittsburgh.
    (2) Persons or vessels requiring entry into or passage through a
safety zone must request permission from the Captain of the Port
Pittsburgh or a designated representative. They may be contacted on
VHF-FM Channel 13 or 16, or through Coast Guard Sector Ohio Valley at
1-800-253-7465.
    (3) All persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of
the Captain of the Port Pittsburgh and designated on-scene U.S. Coast
Guard patrol personnel. On-scene U.S. Coast Guard patrol personnel
includes Commissioned, Warrant, and Petty Officers of the U.S. Coast
Guard.

    Dated: April 12, 2011.
R.V. Timme,
Commander, U.S. Coast Guard Captain of the Port Pittsburgh.
[FR Doc. 2011-12281 Filed 5-18-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 210 (Tuesday, November 1, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65845-65846]
[FR Doc No: 2022-23724]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

[Docket No. FAA-2022-0579]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments;
Clearance of a Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Suspected
Unapproved Parts Report

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information
collection. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period
soliciting comments on the following collection of information was
published on May 18, 2022. The information collection is reported
voluntarily by those who wish to report suspected unapproved parts
(SUP) to the FAA for review. The information is used to determine if an
unapproved part investigation is warranted.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted 30 days after date of
publication in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and recommendations for the proposed
information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of
this notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular
information collection by selecting ``Currently under 30-day Review--
Open for Public Comments'' or by using the search function.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Franklin by email at:
[email protected]; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d)
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of
the collected information.
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0552.
    Title: Suspected Unapproved Parts Report.
    Form Numbers: FAA Form 8120-11.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.

    Background: The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment
period soliciting comments on the following collection of information
was published on May 18, 2022 (87 FR 30327).
    The information collected on the FAA Form 8120-11, Suspected
Unapproved Parts Report, is reported voluntarily by manufacturers,
repair stations, aircraft owner/operators, air carriers, and the
general public who wish to report suspected unapproved parts (SUP) to
the FAA for review. The report information is collected and correlated
by the FAA Hotline Program Office, and used to determine if an
unapproved part investigation is warranted. When unapproved parts are
confirmed that are likely to exist on other products or aircraft of the
same or similar design or are being used in other facilities, the
information is used as a basis for an aviation industry alert or
notification. Alerts are used to inform industry of situations
essential to the prevention of accidents, if the information had not
been collected. The consequence to the aviation community would be the
inability to determine whether or not unapproved parts are being
offered for sale or use for installation on type-certificated products.
    Procedures and processes relating to the SUP program and associated
reports are found in FAA Order 8120.16A, Suspected Unapproved Parts
Program, and Advisory Circular 21-29, Detecting and Reporting Suspected
Unapproved Parts. When unapproved parts are identified, the FAA
notifies the public by published Field Notifications, disseminated
using Unapproved Parts Notifications, Aviation Maintenance Alerts,
Airworthiness Directives, entry into an issue of the Service Difficulty
Reporting Summary, a Special Airworthiness Information Bulletin, a
display on an internet site, or direct mailing. Reporting of
information is strictly voluntary. The information is requested from
any individual or facility suspecting an unapproved part. Any burden is
minimized by requesting only necessary information to warrant an
investigation.
    Respondents: Anyone may fill out and send FAA Form 8120-11to the
FAA.
    Frequency: Whenever anyone discovers or suspects they have received
an unapproved part.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: About 30 minutes to read and
disposition each form.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: The FAA collects approximately 200
forms from the public per year.

    Issued in Des Moines, Washington, on October 19, 2022.
Michael A. Millage,
Manager, Production & Airworthiness Systems, Policy and Innovation
Division, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2022-23724 Filed 10-31-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 144 (Friday, July 30, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41032-41033]
[FR Doc No: 2021-16318]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2017-0751; FRL-8677-01-OCSPP]

Pesticide Registration Review; Interim Decisions and Case
Closures for Several Pesticides; Notice of Availability

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of EPA's interim
registration review decisions for the following chemicals: 10, 10'-
oxybisphenoxarsine (OBPA), acetochlor, coumaphos, citric acid,
dimethenamid/-p, fenamidone, fenazaquin, halohydantoins, insect
viruses, myclobutanil, polixetonium chloride (Busan 77), and propylene
oxide (PPO). In addition, it announces the closure of the registration
review case for Pseudomonas aureofaciens because the last U.S.
registrations for this pesticide have been canceled.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For pesticide specific information, contact: The Chemical Review
Manager for the pesticide of interest identified in the Table in Unit
IV.
    For general information on the registration review program,
contact: Melanie Biscoe, Pesticide Re-evaluation Division (7508P),
Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:
(703) 305-7106; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of
interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human
health, farm worker, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry;
pesticide users; and members of the public interested in the sale,
distribution, or use of pesticides. Since others also may be
interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific
entities that may be affected by this action. If you have any questions
regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity,
consult the pesticide specific contact person listed in the Table in
Unit IV.

B. How can I get copies of this document and other related information?

    The dockets these cases, identified by the docket identification
(ID) number for the specific pesticide of interest provided in the
Table in Unit IV., are available at http://www.regulations.gov or at
the Office of Pesticide Programs Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket)
in the Environmental Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/DC), West
William Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20460-0001. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the
telephone number for the OPP Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Due to the public health concerns related to COVID-19, the EPA
Docket Center (EPA/DC) and Reading Room is closed to visitors with
limited exceptions. The staff continues to provide remote customer
service via email, phone, and webform. For the latest status
information on EPA/DC services and docket access, visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets.

II. Registration Review

    Registration review is EPA's periodic review of pesticide
registrations to ensure that each pesticide continues to satisfy the
statutory standard for registration, that is, the pesticide can perform
its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on human
health or the environment. As part of the registration review process,
the Agency has completed interim decisions for all pesticides listed in
the Table in Unit IV. Through this program, EPA is ensuring that each
pesticide's registration is based on current scientific and other
knowledge, including its effects on human health and the environment.

III. Authority

    EPA is conducting its registration review of the chemicals listed
in the Table in Unit IV. pursuant to section 3(g) of the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and the Procedural
Regulations for Registration Review at 40 CFR part 155, subpart C.
Section 3(g) of FIFRA provides, among other things, that the
registrations of pesticides are to be reviewed every 15 years. Under
FIFRA, a pesticide product may be registered or remain registered only
if it meets the statutory standard for registration given in FIFRA
section 3(c)(5) (7 U.S.C. 136a(c)(5)). When used in accordance with
widespread and commonly recognized practice, the pesticide product must
perform its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on
the environment; that is, without any unreasonable risk to man or the
environment, or a human dietary risk from residues that result from the
use of a pesticide in or on food.

IV. What action is the Agency taking?

    Pursuant to 40 CFR 155.58, this notice announces the availability
of EPA's interim registration review decisions for the pesticides shown
in Table 1. The interim registration review decisions are supported by
rationales included in the docket established for each chemical.

                           Table 1--Registration Review Interim Decisions Being Issued
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Chemical review manager
 Registration review case name and No.                   Docket ID No.                  and contact information
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10, 10'-Oxybisphenoxarsine (OBPA), Case  EPA-HQ-OPP-2009-0618                          Megan Snyderman,
 Number 0044<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>.
Acetochlor, Case Number 7230...........  EPA-HQ-OPP-2016-0298                          Anna Romanovsky,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>.
Coumaphos, Case Number 0018............  EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0023                          Michelle Nolan,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>.
Citric acid, Case Number 4024..........  EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0855                          SanYvette Williams,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>703-305-7702.
Dimethenamid/-p, Case Number 7223......  EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0803                          Lauren Weissenborn,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>703-347-8601.

Fenamidone, Case Number 7033...........  EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0048                          Christian Bongard,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>703-347-0337.
Fenazaquin, Case Number 7447...........  EPA-HQ-OPP-2020-0081                          Katherine Atha,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>.
Halohydantoins, Case Number 3055.......  EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0220                          Peter Bergquist,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>.
Insect Viruses, Case Number 4106.......  EPA-HQ-OPP-2011-0694                          Jennifer Odom,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>.
Myclobutanil, Case Number 7006.........  EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0053                          Anitha Kisanga,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>.
Polixetonium chloride, (Busan 77)......  EPA-HQ-OPP-2015-0256                          Peter Bergquist,
Case Number 3034<EMAIL_ADDRESS><PHONE_NUMBER>.
Propylene Oxide (PPO), Case Number 2560  EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0156                          Jonathan Williams,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>703-347-0670.
Pseudomonas aureofaciens, Case Number    EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0421                          Susanne Cerrelli,
 6009<EMAIL_ADDRESS>                                                                                ,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed interim registration review decisions for the
chemicals in the Table 1 were posted to the docket and the public was
invited to submit any comments or new information. EPA addressed the
comments or information received during the 60-day comment period for
the proposed interim decisions in the discussion for each pesticide
listed in the table. Comments from the 60-day comment period that were
received may or may not have affected the Agency's interim decision.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 155.58(c), the registration review case docket for
the chemicals listed in the Table will remain open until all actions
required in the interim decision have been completed.
    This document also announces the closure of the registration review
case for Pseudomonas aureofaciens (Case Number 6009, Docket ID Number
EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0421) because the last U.S. registrations for these
pesticides have been canceled.
    Background on the registration review program is provided at:
http://www.epa.gov/pesticide-reevaluation.
    Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136 et seq.

    Dated: July 26, 2021.
Mary Reaves,
Acting Director, Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division, Office of Pesticide
Programs.
[FR Doc. 2021-16318 Filed 7-29-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 239 (Friday, December 11, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Page 80116]
[FR Doc No: 2020-27289]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA- 2019-N-4203]

Advisory Committee; Bone, Reproductive and Urologic Drugs
Advisory Committee; Renewal

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice; renewal of advisory committee.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the
renewal of the Bone, Reproductive and Urologic Drugs Advisory Committee
by the Commissioner of Food and Drugs (the Commissioner). The
Commissioner has determined that it is in the public interest to renew
the Bone, Reproductive and Urologic Drugs Advisory Committee for an
additional 2 years beyond the charter expiration date. The new charter
will be in effect until the March 23, 2022, expiration date.

DATES: Authority for the Bone, Reproductive and Urologic Drugs Advisory
Committee will expire on March 23, 2022 unless the Commissioner
formally determines that renewal is in the public interest.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kalyani Bhatt, Division of Advisory
Committee and Consultant Management, Center for Drug Evaluation and
Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg.
31, Rm. 2417, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.65 and approval by
the Department of Health and Human Services pursuant to 45 CFR part 11
and by the General Services Administration, FDA is announcing the
renewal of the Bone, Reproductive and Urologic Drugs Advisory
Committee. The Committee is a discretionary Federal advisory committee
established to provide advice to the Commissioner.
    The Bone, Reproductive and Urologic Drugs Advisory Committee
advises the Commissioner or designee in discharging responsibilities as
they relate to helping to ensure safe and effective drugs for human use
and, as required, any other product for which FDA has regulatory
responsibility.
    The Committee reviews and evaluates data on the safety and
effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drug products for
use in the practice of osteoporosis and metabolic bone disease,
obstetrics, gynecology, urology and related specialties, and makes
appropriate recommendations to the Commissioner.
    Under its Charter, the Committee shall consist of a core of 11
voting members including the Chair. Members and the Chair are selected
by the Commissioner or designee from among authorities knowledgeable in
the fields of osteoporosis and metabolic bone disease, obstetrics,
gynecology, urology, pediatrics, epidemiology, or statistics and
related specialties. Members will be invited to serve for overlapping
terms of up to 4 years. Almost all non-Federal members of this
committee serve as Special Government Employees. The core of voting
members may include one technically qualified member, selected by the
Commissioner or designee, who is identified with consumer interests and
is recommended by either a consortium of consumer-oriented
organizations or other interested persons. In addition to the voting
members, the Committee may include one non-voting representative member
who is identified with industry interests. There may also be an
alternate industry representative.
    Further information regarding the most recent charter and other
information can be found at https://www.fda.gov/advisory-committees/human-drug-advisory-committees/bone-reproductive-and-urologic-drugs-advisory-committee-formerly-reproductive-health-drugs-advisory or by
contacting the Designated Federal Officer (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT). In light of the fact that no change has been made to the
Committee name or description of duties, no amendment will be made to
21 CFR 14.100.
    This document is issued under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5
U.S.C. app.). For general information related to FDA advisory
committees, please check https://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/default.htm.

    Dated: December 8, 2020.
Lauren K. Roth,
Acting Principal Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2020-27289 Filed 12-10-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


SECTION F

	TOLERANCE PROPOSAL

Tolerances are proposed for combined residues of spiromesifen: 2-oxo-3-(2,4,6-trimethylphenyl)-1-oxaspiro[4.4]non-3-en-4-yl 3,3-dimethylbutanoate, its enol metabolite (4-hydroxy- 3-(2,4,6-trimethylphenyl)-1-oxaspiro [4.4 ] non-3-en-2-one) and its metabolites containing the 4-hydroxymethyl moiety (4-hydroxy-3-[4-(hydroxymethyl)- 2,6-dimethyl phenyl]-1-oxaspiro[4.4]non-3-en-2-one), calculated as parent compound equivalents, on the following commodities from crops grown as rotational crops:

Rotational Crop

Commodity	Plant-Back

Interval	Proposed Tolerance (Ppm)

vegetable , bulb, (Crop Group 3-07)

	30

	0.07


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 42 (Monday, March 4, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 7351]
[FR Doc No: 2019-03762]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL19-49-000]

Notice of Filing; Cooperative Energy

    Take notice that on February 25, 2019, Cooperative Energy filed a
proposed revenue requirement filing for reactive supply service for its
Batesville Combined Cycle and Grand Gulf Nuclear Generating Facilities,
under Midcontinent Independent Transmission System Operator Inc. Tariff
Schedule 2.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the eFiling link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
eLibrary link and is available for review in the Commission's Public
Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link on the
website that enables subscribers to receive email notification when a
document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with any
FERC Online service, please email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call
(866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on March 18, 2019.

    Dated: February 26, 2019.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-03762 Filed 3-1-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 177 (Thursday, September 16, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 51665]
[FR Doc No: 2021-20002]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP21-14-000]

Adelphia Gateway, LLC; Notice of Revised Schedule for
Environmental Review of the Marcus Hook Electric Compression Project

    This notice identifies the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
staff's revised schedule for the completion of the environmental impact
statement (EIS) for Adelphia Gateway, LLC's Marcus Hook Electric
Compression Project. The Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental
Impact Statement for the Proposed Marcus Hook Electric Compression
Project and Schedule for Environmental Review, issued on May 27, 2021,
identified September 10, 2021 as the final EIS issuance date. However,
we are modifying this issuance date based on comments received on the
draft EIS and based on Adelphia Gateway, LLC's supplemental information
filed on August 25, 2021 to address comments.

Schedule for Environmental Review

Issuance of the final EIS--October 1, 2021
90-day Federal Authorization Decision Deadline--December 30, 2021

    If a schedule change becomes necessary, an additional notice will
be provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the
project's progress.

Additional Information

    In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EIS and to
keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets,
the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. This can
reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by
automatically providing you with notification of these filings,
document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to https://www.ferc.gov/ferc-online/overview to register for eSubscription.
    Additional information about the Project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs at (866) 208-FERC or on the
FERC website (www.ferc.gov). Using the ``eLibrary'' link, select
``General Search'' from the eLibrary menu, enter the selected date
range and ``Docket Number'' (i.e., CP21-14), and follow the
instructions. For assistance with access to eLibrary, the helpline can
be reached at<PHONE_NUMBER>, TTY<PHONE_NUMBER>, or at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The eLibrary link on the FERC website also
provides access to the texts of formal documents issued by the
Commission, such as orders, notices, and rule makings. This notice is
issued and published in accordance with 18 CFR 2.1.

    Dated: September 10, 2021.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-20002 Filed 9-15-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P