34584 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 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. 

7. 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. 

8. 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. 

9. 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. 

10. 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. 

11. 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. 

12. Technical Standards 

This rule does not use technical 

standards. Therefore, we did not 

consider the use of voluntary consensus 

standards. 

13. 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 record keeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR parts 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 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. 

■ 2. Add § 165.T09–0312 to read as 

follows: 

§ 165.T09–0312 Safety Zone; Rochester 

Yacht Club Fireworks, Genesee River, 

Rochester, NY. 

(a) Location. This zone will 

encompass all waters of the Genesee 

River, Rochester, NY within a 560 foot 

radius of position 43°15′36.6′′ N and 

77°36′00.6′′ W (NAD 83). 

(b) Effective and Enforcement Period. 

This regulation is effective and will be 

enforced on June 22, 2013 from 9:30 

p.m. until 11:00 p.m. 

(c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with 

the general regulations in section 165.23 

of this part, entry into, transiting, or 

anchoring within this safety zone is 

prohibited unless authorized by the 

Captain of the Port Buffalo 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 

Buffalo or his designated on-scene 

representative. 

(3) The ‘‘on-scene representative’’ of 

the Captain of the Port Buffalo is any 

Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or 

petty officer who has been designated 

by the Captain of the Port Buffalo to act 

on his behalf. 

(4) Vessel operators desiring to enter 

or operate within the safety zone shall 

contact the Captain of the Port Buffalo 

or his on-scene representative to obtain 

permission to do so. The Captain of the 

Port Buffalo 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 Buffalo, or his on-scene 

representative. 

Dated: May 23, 2013. 

S.M. Wischmann, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Buffalo. 

[FR Doc. 2013–13661 Filed 6–7–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0055; FRL–9820–3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Pennsylvania; Allegheny County 

Reasonably Available Control 

Technology Under the 8-Hour Ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision for 

the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 

submitted by Allegheny County Health 

Department (ACHD). This SIP revision 

consists of a demonstration that 

Allegheny County’s portion of the 

Pennsylvania requirements of 

reasonably available control technology 

(RACT) for nitrogen oxides (NOX) and 

volatile organic compounds (VOCs) 

satisfy the RACT requirements set forth 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 34585 

by the Clean Air Act (CAA). This SIP 

revision demonstrates that all 

requirements for RACT are met through: 

Certification that previously adopted 

RACT controls in Pennsylvania’s SIP 

that were approved by EPA under the 1- 

hour ozone national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS) are based on the 

currently available technically and 

economically feasible controls, and that 

they continue to represent RACT for the 

8-hour ozone NAAQS; a negative 

declaration demonstrating that no 

facilities exist in Allegheny County for 

certain control technology guideline 

(CTG) categories; and a new RACT 

determination for a specific source. This 

action is being taken under the CAA. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on July 

10, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

Number EPA–R03–OAR–2013–0055. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although listed in the electronic docket, 

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 electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy for 

public inspection during normal 

business hours at the Air Protection 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

Copies of the State submittal are 

available at the Allegheny County 

Health Department, Bureau of 

Environmental Quality, Division of Air 

Quality, 301 39th Street, Pittsburgh, 

Pennsylvania 15201. Copies are also 

available at Pennsylvania Department of 

Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air 

Quality Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 

Market Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 

17105. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Emlyn Ve ́lez-Rosa, (215) 814–2038, or 

by email at velez-rosa.emlyn@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Throughout this document, whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. On February 26, 2013 (78 FR 

13007), EPA published a notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The 

NPR proposed approval of Allegheny 

County’s SIP revision addressing the 

RACT requirements under the 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS. The formal SIP revision 

was submitted by the Commonwealth of 

Pennsylvania on May 5, 2009. 

EPA requires for the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS that states meet the CAA RACT 

requirements, either through a 

certification that previously adopted 

RACT controls in their SIP approved by 

EPA under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS 

represent adequate RACT control levels 

for 8-hour ozone NAAQS attainment 

purposes or through the establishment 

of new or more stringent requirements 

that represent RACT control levels. See 

Final Rule To Implement the 8-Hour 

Ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard—Phase 2; Final Rule To 

Implement Certain Aspects of the 1990 

Amendments Relating to New Source 

Review and Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration as They Apply in Carbon 

Monoxide, Particulate Matter and 

Ozone NAAQS; Final Rule for 

Reformulated Gasoline (Phase 2 Rule), 

(70 FR 71612, 71655, November 29, 

2005). 

II. Summary of the SIP Revision 

On May 5, 2009, the Pennsylvania 

Department of Environmental Protection 

(PADEP) submitted on behalf of ACHD 

a SIP revision addressing the RACT 

requirements for Allegheny County 

under the 8-hour ozone NAAQS set 

forth by the CAA. Allegheny County’s 

SIP revision is consistent with the Phase 

2 Rule and satisfies the requirements of 

RACT set forth by the CAA under the 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS through: (1) 

Certification that previously adopted 

RACT controls in Allegheny County’s 

SIP, which were approved by EPA 

under the 1-hour ozone NAAQS, are 

based on the currently available 

technically and economically feasible 

controls and continue to represent 

RACT for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS; (2) 

a negative declaration demonstrating 

that no facilities exist in Allegheny 

County for the applicable CTG 

categories; and (3) a new RACT 

determination for a single source based 

upon reliance on the Maximum 

Achievable Control Technology (MACT) 

standard as allowed in the Phase 2 Rule. 

Additional details on the SIP revision as 

well as the rationale for EPA’s proposed 

action are included in the NPR and will 

not be restated here. No public 

comments were received on the NPR. 

III. Final Action 

EPA is approving Allegheny County’s 

8-hour ozone RACT demonstration 

submitted to EPA on May 5, 2009 as a 

revision to the Allegheny County’s 

portion of the Commonwealth of 

Pennsylvania’s SIP. 

A. General Requirements 

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 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 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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

34586 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 111 / Monday, June 10, 2013 / Rules and Regulations 

B. Submission to Congress and the 

Comptroller General 

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). 

C. Petitions for Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by August 9, 2013. 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, which 

approves Allegheny County’s 8-hour 

ozone RACT demonstration, may not be 

challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

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

Dated: May 16, 2013. 

W.C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart NN—Pennsylvania 

■ 2. In § 52.2020, the table in paragraph 

(e)(1) is amended by adding an entry for 

RACT under the 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

for Allegheny County at the end of the 

table. The added text reads as follows: 

§ 52.2020 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(1) * * * 

Name of non-regulatory SIP 

revision Applicable geographic area State submittal date EPA approval date Additional explanation 

*******

RACT under the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS.

Allegheny County ........................ 5/5/09 6/10/13 [Insert page number where the document 

begins].

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2013–13598 Filed 6–7–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration 

50 CFR Part 622 

[Docket No. 130212129–3474–02] 

RIN 0648–XC715 

Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of 

Mexico, and South Atlantic; Reef Fish 

Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico; Adjusted 

Closure of the 2013 Gulf of Mexico 

Recreational Sector for Red Snapper 

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries 

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 

Commerce. 

ACTION: Temporary rule; closure. 

SUMMARY: NMFS announces an adjusted 

closure of the recreational sector for red 

snapper in the exclusive economic zone 

(EEZ) of the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) for 

the 2013 fishing season through this 

temporary rule. On May 31, 2013, the 

U.S. District Court for the southern 

district of Texas, Brownsville Division, 

set aside a March 25, 2013, emergency 

rule that gave the NMFS Regional 

Administrator the authority to close the 

recreational sector for red snapper in the 

EEZ off individual Gulf states. 

Therefore, NMFS adjusts the closure of 

the recreational sector for red snapper 

by closing the entire Gulf EEZ on June 

29, 2013, instead of closing the EEZ on 

different days off individual Gulf states. 

This Gulf-wide EEZ closure is based on 

the Court decision and is necessary to 

prevent the recreational sector from 

exceeding its quota for the fishing year 

and prevent overfishing of the Gulf red 

snapper resource. 

DATES: The closure is effective 12:01 

a.m., local time, June 29, 2013, until 

12:01 a.m., local time, January 1, 2014. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Susan Gerhart, telephone 727–824– 

5305, email Susan.Gerhart@noaa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Gulf 

reef fish fishery, which includes red 

snapper, is managed under the Fishery 

Management Plan for the Reef Fish 

Resources of the Gulf of Mexico (FMP). 

The FMP was prepared by the Gulf of 

Mexico Fishery Management Council 

(Council) and is implemented under the 

authority of the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management 

Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by 

regulations at 50 CFR part 622. 

Background 

On March 25, 2013, NMFS 

implemented an emergency rule to 

authorize the NMFS Regional 

Administrator to set the closure date of 

the red snapper recreational fishing 

season in the exclusive economic zone 

(EEZ) off individual states (78 FR 

17882). This was intended to 

compensate for the additional harvest of 

red snapper by the recreational sector 

during less restrictive state-water 

seasons off certain states. On May 31, 

2013, the U.S. District Court for the 

southern district of Texas, Brownsville 

Division, set aside this emergency rule. 

Therefore, the closure of the recreational 

sector for red snapper for the 2013 

fishing year is adjusted so that the 

Federal recreational red snapper season 

is consistent across all Gulf states. 

Taking into account the catches 

expected later in 2013 during the 

extended state-water seasons off Texas, 

Louisiana, and Florida, and the 

increased quota published in a final rule 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES