80436 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

On August 29, 2024, Airlines for 

America, the International Air Transport 

Association, the National Air Carrier 

Association, and the Regional Airline 

Association (collectively, ‘‘Members’’) 

filed a joint request to extend the public 

comment period on the family seating 

NPRM for an additional 60 days. The 

Members state that additional time is 

needed to collect data and submit 

comprehensive comments to help the 

Department make an informed decision 

on a final rule. Specifically, the 

Members assert that the Department has 

not sufficiently considered the impact of 

its proposal on foreign airlines which 

means that the airline industry must 

collect, analyze, and submit information 

regarding this impact. According to the 

Members, this is a significant task that 

will take time to complete. Furthermore, 

the Members state that airlines need 

additional time to fully consider and 

analyze the proposed procedures for 

mitigating harm to passengers who are 

not provided adjacent family seating, 

including time to determine the 

proposals impact on their operations 

and propose potential alternatives that 

meet the Department’s goals but are less 

disruptive to airlines. The Members also 

note that the expert report that the 

Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) relied 

on was placed in the docket two weeks 

after the NPRM was published which 

reduced the time available to review 

this important report and negatively 

impacted their ability to assess the 

Department’s proposal and its potential 

impacts and submit well informed 

comments. Finally, the members point 

to the Department’s request for 

comments regarding fees charged by 

airlines for ‘‘basic services’’ as a broad 

request for which additional time is 

needed to respond. 

On September 3, 2024, Southwest 

Airlines (Southwest) also filed a request 

to extend the public comment period on 

the family seating NPRM for an 

additional 60 days. In addition to 

expressing support for the Member’s 

request to extend the comment period, 

Southwest states in its request that the 

comment period for the NPRM should 

be extended because the airline is 

currently transitioning from an open 

seating model to a carrier that assigns 

seat and unlike other carriers must 

evaluate and comment on both the 

assigned seating carrier and open 

seating carrier provisions in the NPRM. 

On September 11, 2024, the American 

Economic Liberties Project, the 

Consumer Action, the Consumer 

Federation of America, the National 

Consumers League, and the U.S. PIRG 

(collectively ‘‘consumer advocacy 

groups’’) filed an opposition to the 

Members’ request for an extension to the 

public comment period for the family 

seating NPRM. The consumer advocacy 

groups urge the Department to stay on 

its current rulemaking trajectory and 

argue that an extension is unnecessary 

since the Department has provided 

ample time for relevant stakeholders to 

respond to a proposed rule that has been 

years in the making, especially since the 

proposals in the NPRM are modeled 

after draft legislation that the 

Department made public before the 

NPRM was issued. 

The Department has carefully 

considered both requests to extend the 

comment period on the family seating 

NPRM filed by the Members and 

Southwest, and the consumer advocacy 

groups opposition to an extension 

request. After considering the arguments 

presented, the Department has decided 

to extend the comment period of the 

proposed rule for 30 days from October 

8, 2024, to November 7, 2024. In doing 

so, the Department acknowledges that 

the NPRM raises important issues which 

require in-depth analysis and 

consideration by stakeholders. At the 

same time, the Department agrees with 

the consumer advocacy groups that the 

proposals in the NPRM are modeled 

after draft legislation that Department 

submitted to Congress and should not 

be a surprise to the stakeholders. The 

Department believes that granting a 30- 

day extension of the original 60-day 

comment period, is sufficient to allow 

stakeholders to conduct a thorough and 

careful consideration of all potential 

impacts and prepare comments. Latefiled comments will be considered to 

the extent practicable. 

Signed in Washington, DC, under authority 

delegated at 49 CFR 1.27(n). 

Subash Iyer, 

Acting General Counsel, U.S. Department of 

Transportation. 

[FR Doc. 2024–22632 Filed 10–2–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–9X–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 117 

[Docket No. USCG–2024–0412] 

RIN 1625–AA09 

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; 

Hackensack River, Little Snake Hill, NJ 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard proposes to 

modify the operating conditions of the 

Amtrak Portal Bridge across the 

Hackensack River, mile 5.0, at Little 

Snake Hill, New Jersey. This action is 

necessary to facilitate the construction 

of the new replacement Portal Bridge 

North, adjacent to the current Amtrak 

Portal Bridge. This proposed rulemaking 

would limit the extent of the opening of 

the Amtrak Portal Bridge in the 

horizontal position to prevent the swing 

span from striking the new Portal Bridge 

North during construction. We invite 

your comments on this proposed 

rulemaking. 

DATES: Comments and related material 

must reach the Coast Guard on or before 

November 4, 2024. The Coast Guard 

anticipates that this proposed rule will 

be effective on or about February 1, 

2025. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

identified by docket number USCG– 

2024–0412 using the Federal Decision 

Making Portal at http://

www.regulations.gov. See the ‘‘Public 

Participation and Request for 

Comments’’ portion of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

below for instruction on submitting 

comments. This notice of proposed 

rulemaking with its plain-language, 100- 

word-or-less proposed rule summary 

will be available in this same docket. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this proposed 

rule, call or email Ms. Judy Leung-Yee, 

First Coast Guard District, Project 

Officer; telephone 212–514–4336, email 

Judy.K.Leung-Yee@uscg.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Table of Abbreviations 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

FR Federal Register 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

NPRM Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

(Advance, Supplemental) 

§ Section 

U.S.C. United States Code 

II. Background, Purpose and Legal 

Basis 

The Amtrak Portal Bridge is a swing 

bridge across the Hackensack River, at 

mile 5.0, in Little Snake Hill, NJ. The 

bridge has a vertical clearance of 23 feet 

at mean high water in the closed 

position and 102 feet at mean high 

water in the open position. When 

closed, the Amtrak Portal Bridge allows 

trains to transit across the river. When 

marine traffic needs to transit down the 

waterway, the bridge swings open from 

a central pivot to create horizontal 

clearance for vessels. The waterway 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2024 / Proposed Rules 80437 

1More details on the construction plans can be 

found here: https://www.amtrak.com/portal-northbridge. 

2New Jersey’s Portal Bridge, bane of the 

Northeast Corridor, is due for upgrade—The 

Washington Post, article written November 15, 

2014. 

users include recreational and 

commercial vessels, and the existing 

drawbridge operating regulations are 

listed at 33 CFR 117.723(e). 

In partnership with New Jersey 

Transit, Amtrak plans to replace the 

Amtrak Portal Bridge (existing bridge), 

with a 52-foot-tall, fixed bridge, the 

Portal Bridge North (new bridge) that 

will allow marine traffic to pass without 

movement of the bridge.1 Shoreside 

construction of the new bridge is 

already underway and New Jersey 

Transit estimates completion by 

February 2027. To support construction 

of the new bridge, New Jersey Transit 

submitted a request to the Coast Guard 

to change the drawbridge operating 

regulations of the existing bridge. 

The purpose of this proposed rule is 

to limit the opening of the existing 

Amtrak Portal Bridge to prevent striking 

the new Portal Bridge North while 

swinging open. This is necessary due to 

the proximity of the new Portal Bridge 

North to the existing Amtrak Portal 

Bridge. 

The Coast Guard is proposing this 

rulemaking under the authority in 33 

U.S.C. 499. 

III. Discussion of Proposed Rule 

The Amtrak Portal Bridge would 

continue to operate under its regular 

operating schedule found in 33 CFR 

117.723(e), but there would be a 

difference in the horizontal clearance. 

Presently, the Amtrak Portal Bridge 

provides 88 feet horizontal clearance in 

the east channel and 91 feet horizontal 

clearance in the west channel. This 

proposed rule would allow the bridge to 

only open to 55 feet horizontal 

clearance in the east channel and the 

west channel would be closed to all 

navigation. 

Construction on the new Portal Bridge 

North will prevent the existing Amtrak 

Portal Bridge from fully opening in the 

horizontal position in order to prevent 

the swing span from striking the new 

Portal Bridge North during construction. 

The construction will impact the 

Amtrak Portal Bridge for approximately 

2 years, from February 1, 2025, to 

February 1, 2027, after which the 

existing bridge will be demolished. 

There is one regular commercial 

waterway user that transits the Portal 

Bridge on an average of two to three 

round trips per week. There are also 

some recreational vessels that transit the 

bridge. The Coast Guard’s review of the 

bridge logs in the last two years shows 

that bridge openings average 25 per 

month. Vessels narrower than 55 feet 

wide would still be able to transit 

through the narrower opening of the 

bridge. There are no other known 

commercial or recreational vessels that 

will be impacted by this rule. 

IV. Regulatory Analysis 

We developed this proposed rule after 

considering numerous statutes and 

Executive Orders related to rulemaking. 

Below we summarize our analyses 

based on these statutes and Executive 

Orders. 

A. Regulatory Planning and Review 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

direct agencies to assess the costs and 

benefits of available regulatory 

alternatives and, if regulation is 

necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits. 

This proposed rule has not been 

designated a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action,’’ under section 3(f) of Executive 

Order 12866, as amended by Executive 

Order 14094 (Modernizing Regulatory 

Review). Accordingly, the NPRM has 

not been reviewed by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB). A 

regulatory analysis follows. 

This proposed rule would allow the 

existing bridge to open to only 55 feet 

horizontal clearance in the east channel 

compared to the current horizontal 

clearance of 88 feet. The west channel 

would be closed to all navigation. This 

closure would prevent operation of a 

commercial tug that tows a 70 feet wide 

barge because the 55-foot opening is too 

narrow for the barge to transit safely. 

This is the only known commercial 

vessel that would be impacted by this 

rule. 

Affected Population 

We anticipate that this proposed rule 

would only impact a single commercial 

vessel that would be unable to transit 

the Amtrak Portal Bridge during 

construction of the new bridge. There 

are no other known commercial vessels 

impacted by this rule. If you believe that 

there are additional impacted vessels, 

please submit a public comment 

providing the vessel(s) size, type, and 

destination. The Coast Guard did not 

identify other commercial entities that 

would be impacted by this proposed 

rule. Also, we do not anticipate that 

recreational vessels would be impacted 

by this proposed rule as the Coast Guard 

did not identify any recreational vessel 

that could not transit within the 55-foot 

horizontal clearance. 

Costs 

The costs of this proposed rule would 

be lost revenue incurred by the 

commercial tug whose barge cannot 

transit the narrower opening of the 

existing bridge. The commercial tug has 

several alternative options to avoid the 

lost revenue, however. The first option 

is for the commercial tug company to 

buy a new barge that is narrow enough 

to go through the 55-foot bridge 

opening. Additionally, the commercial 

barge company could switch the current 

barge for another barge in their fleet, 

assuming that barge is compatible with 

their various tasks. 

Benefits 

The benefit of this rule is that it 

allows for the construction of a new 

bridge to transport the 150,000–200,000 

daily passenger train commuters who 

currently use the bridge. Construction of 

the new bridge has been approved by 

New Jersey Transit and is already in 

progress. The new bridge would allow 

for trains to travel at up to 90 mph, 

compared to the current 60 mph 

allowed by the current bridge.2

Additionally, the new bridge is not a 

drawbridge and therefore, should 

experience less mechanical malfunction 

leading to fewer delays. 

B. Impact on Small Entities 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 

(RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601–612, as amended, 

requires Federal agencies to consider 

the potential impact of regulations on 

small entities during rulemaking. The 

term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises small 

businesses, not-for-profit organizations 

that are independently owned and 

operated and are not dominant in their 

fields, and governmental jurisdictions 

with populations of less than 50,000. To 

achieve this principle, agencies are 

required to solicit and consider flexible 

regulatory proposals and to explain the 

rationale for their actions to assure that 

such proposals are given serious 

consideration. 

When an agency promulgates a final 

rule under section 553 of 5 U.S. Code, 

after being required by that section or 

any other law to publish a general 

notice of proposed rulemaking, the 

agency must prepare an initial 

regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) or 

have the head of the agency certify 

pursuant to RFA section 605(b) that the 

rule will not, if promulgated, have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The RA prescribes the content of the 

IRFA, which we discuss below. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
80438 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2024 / Proposed Rules 

3https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/5/603. 

(1) A description of the reasons why 

action by the agency is being 

considered; 

(2) A succinct statement of the 

objectives of, and legal basis for, the 

rule; 

(3) A description of and, where 

feasible, an estimate of the number of 

small entities to which the rule will 

apply; 

(4) A description of the projected 

reporting, recordkeeping and other 

compliance requirements of the rule, 

including an estimate of the classes of 

small entities that will be subject to the 

requirement and the type of professional 

skills necessary for preparation of the 

report or record; 

(5) An identification, to the extent 

practicable, of all relevant Federal rules 

that may duplicate, overlap or conflict 

with the rule; and 

(6) A description of any significant 

alternatives to the rule that accomplish 

the stated objectives of applicable 

statutes and that minimize any 

significant economic impact of the rule 

on small entities.3

Below is a discussion of the IRFA 

analysis for each of these six elements. 

(1) A description of the reasons why 

action by the agency is being 

considered: 

This proposed rule would address the 

need to accommodate the construction 

of the new Portal Bridge North, which 

would prevent the existing bridge from 

fully opening due to the proximity of 

the existing bridge to the bridge 

currently under construction. 

(2) A succinct statement of the 

objectives of, and legal basis for, the 

rule: 

The objective of this rule is to modify 

width of opening for the Amtrak Portal 

Bridge in 33 CFR 117.723(e) to 

accommodate construction activity for 

the new Portal Bridge North. The Coast 

Guard has statutory authority to 

promulgate drawbridge operation 

regulations under 33. U.S.C. 499. 

(3) A description of and, where 

feasible, an estimate of the number of 

small entities to which the rule will 

apply: 

The proposed rule would affect 

vessels transiting through the Amtrak 

Portal Bridge. The only known entity 

impacted by this rule is a commercial 

tug company that transports sludge to 

the NJ treatment plant. We used 

available operator name and address 

information to research public and 

proprietary databases for entity type 

(subsidiary or parent company), primary 

line of business, employee size, 

revenue, and other information. The 

company had no information available 

through these databases. Consistent 

with DHS practice, entities with no 

information available will be considered 

‘‘small entities.’’ Without quantitative 

cost data or revenue data, we’re not 

capable of analyzing the revenue impact 

of this rule to this small entity, thus we 

assume the impact is significant. 

(4) A description of the projected 

reporting, recordkeeping and other 

compliance requirements of the rule, 

including an estimate of the classes of 

small entities that will be subject to the 

requirement and the type of professional 

skills necessary for preparation of the 

report or record: 

This proposed rule calls for no new 

reporting, recordkeeping or other 

compliance requirements. 

(5) An identification, to the extent 

practicable, of all relevant Federal rules 

that may duplicate, overlap or conflict 

with the rule: 

The Coast Guard has not identified 

any Federal rules that duplicate, 

overlap, or conflict with the rule. 33 

CFR 117.723(e) is the only Federal rule 

that controls the drawbridge operation 

schedule for the Amtrak Portal Bridge. 

(6) A description of any significant 

alternatives to the rule that accomplish 

the stated objectives of applicable 

statutes and that minimize any 

significant economic impact of the rule 

on small entities. 

The Coast Guard considered several 

alternatives to this rule to minimize any 

impact to small entities. The Coast 

Guard considered closing the waterway 

to all commercial and recreational 

traffic to ensure safety during 

construction of the new bridge. This 

alternative was rejected since the 

drawbridge is still capable of opening 

part of the way and allowing safe travel 

for vessels smaller than 55 feet wide. 

Additionally, we considered allowing 

for shorter notice to open the 

drawbridge for commercial vessels. This 

was rejected since the shorter notice 

would be unsafe for the passenger trains 

that use the bridge when it is closed. 

Finally, the Coast Guard considers the 

rule as our preferred alternative. This 

allows for recreational and commercial 

vessels smaller than 55 feet wide to 

transit the waterway without disrupting 

construction of the new bridge. 

If you think that your business, 

organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity 

and that this rule would have a 

significant economic impact on it, 

please submit a comment (see 

ADDRESSES) explaining why you think it 

qualifies and how and to what degree 

this rule would economically affect it. 

Under section 213(a) of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121), 

we want to assist small entities in 

understanding this proposed rule. If the 

proposed rule would affect your small 

business, organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction and you have questions 

concerning its provisions or options for 

compliance, please contact the person 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section. The Coast Guard will 

not retaliate against small entities that 

question or complain about this 

proposed rule or any policy or action of 

the Coast Guard. 

C. Collection of Information 

This proposed rule would call for no 

new collection of information under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501–3520.). 

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal 

Governments 

A rule has implications for federalism 

under Executive Order 13132 

(Federalism), if it has a substantial 

direct effect on the States, on the 

relationship between the National 

Government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. We have analyzed 

this proposed rule under that Order and 

have determined that it is consistent 

with the fundamental federalism 

principles and preemption requirements 

described in Executive Order 13132. 

Also, this proposed rule does not have 

tribal implications under Executive 

Order 13175 (Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments) because it would not 

have substantial direct effect on one or 

more Indian tribes, or the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes. If you believe this 

proposed rule has implication for 

federalism or Indian tribes, please 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Act addresses actions 

that may result in the expenditure by a 

State, local, or tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or 

more in any one year. Though this 

proposed rule will not result in such an 

expenditure, we do discuss the effects of 

this proposed rule elsewhere in the 

preamble. 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 192 / Thursday, October 3, 2024 / Proposed Rules 80439 

F. Environmental

We have analyzed this rule under

Department of Homeland Security 

Management Directive 023–01, Rev.1, 

associated implementing, instructions, 

Environmental Planning Policy 

COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which 

guide the Coast Guard in complying 

with the National Environmental Policy 

Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321– 

4370f). The Coast Guard has 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 proposed 

rule promulgates the operating 

regulations or procedures for 

drawbridges. Normally such actions are 

categorically excluded for further 

review, under paragraph L49 of chapter 

3, Table 3–1 of the U.S. Coast Guard 

Environmental Planning Implementing 

Planning Implementation Procedures. 

Neither a Record of Environmental 

Consideration nor a Memorandum for 

the Record are required for this rule. We 

seek any comments or information that 

may lead to the discovery of a 

significant environmental impact from 

this proposed rule. 

V. Public Participation and Request for

Comments

We viewed public participation as 

essential to effective rulemaking and 

will consider all comments and material 

received during the comment period. 

Your comment can help shape the 

outcome of this rulemaking. If you 

submit a comment, please include the 

docket number for this rulemaking, 

indicate the specific section of this 

document to which each comment 

applies, and provide a reason for each 

suggestion or recommendation. 

Submitting comments. We encourage 

you to submit comments through the 

Federal Decision Making Portal at 

https://www.regulations.gov. To do so, 

go to https://www.regulations.gov, type 

USCG–2024–0412 in the search box and 

click ‘‘Search.’’ Next, look for this 

document in the Search Results column, 

and click on it. Then click on the 

Comment option. If your material 

cannot be submitted using https://

www.regulations.gov, contact the person 

in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section of this document for 

alternate instructions. 

Viewing material in docket. To view 

documents mentioned in this proposed 

rule as being available in the docket, 

find the docket as described in the 

previous paragraph, and then select 

‘‘Supporting & Related Material’’ in the 

Document Type column. Public 

comments will also be placed in our 

online docket and can be viewed by 

following instructions on the https://

www/regulations.gov Frequently Asked 

Questions web page. Also, if you go to 

the online docket and sign up for email 

alerts, you will be notified when 

comments are posted, or a final rule is 

published of any posting or updates to 

the docket. 

We review all comments received, but 

we will only post comments that 

address the topic of the proposed rule. 

We may choose not to post off-topic, 

inappropriate, or duplicate comments 

that we receive. 

Personal Information. We accept 

anonymous comments. Comments we 

post to https://www.regulations.gov will 

include any personal information you 

have provided. For more about privacy 

and submissions in response to this 

document, see DHS’s eRulemaking 

System of Records notice (85 FR 14226, 

March 11, 2020). 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117 

Bridges. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows: 

PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE 

OPERATION REGULATIONS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 117 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05–1; 

and DHS Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision 

No. 01.3. 

■ 2. Amend § 117.723 by revising 

paragraph (e) to read as follows:

§ 117.723 Hackensack River.

* * * * * 

(e) The draw of the AMTRAK Portal

Bridge, mile 5.0, at Little Snake Hill, 

New Jersey, shall only open to 55 feet 

horizontal clearance in the east channel 

and the west channel will be closed to 

all navigation. The draw need not open 

for the passage of vessel traffic from 5 

a.m. to 10 a.m. and from 3 p.m. to 8 p.m.

Additional bridge openings shall be

provided for tide restricted commercial

vessels between 7 a.m. and 8 a.m. and

between 5 p.m. and 6 p.m., if at least a

two-hour advance notice is given by

calling the number posted at the bridge.

At all other times the bridge shall open

on signal if at least a 2 hour advance

notice is given.

* * * * * 

M.E. Platt,

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 

First Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 2024–22822 Filed 10–2–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2022–0976; FRL–10788– 

04–R5] 

Air Plan Approval; Michigan; 

Attainment Plan for the Detroit 2010 

Sulfur Dioxide Nonattainment Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

the State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by Michigan on 

December 20, 2022, and supplemented 

on February 21, 2023, December 14, 

2023, and April 2, 2024, which amends 

a SIP submission previously submitted 

to EPA on May 31, 2016, and June 30, 

2016, for attaining the 1-hour sulfur 

dioxide (SO2) primary national ambient 

air quality standard (NAAQS) for the 

Detroit SO2 nonattainment area. This 

action supplements a prior action which 

found that Michigan had satisfied 

emission inventory and new source 

review (NSR) requirements for this area, 

but had not met requirements under the 

Clean Air Act (CAA) for the elements 

proposed to be approved here. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before November 4, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2022–0976 at https://

www.regulations.gov, or via email to 

arra.sarah@epa.gov. For comments 

submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Once submitted, comments 

cannot be edited or removed from the 

docket. EPA may publish any comment 

received to its public docket. Do not 

submit to EPA’s docket at https://

www.regulations.gov any information 

you consider to be Confidential 

Business Information (CBI), Proprietary 

Business Information (PBI), or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. EPA will generally not consider 

comments or comment contents located 

outside of the primary submission (i.e., 

on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 

system). For additional submission 

methods, please contact the person 

identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the 

full EPA public comment policy, 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS1