40070 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 163 / Thursday, August 24, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

Dated: August 9, 2017. 

J.R. Buzzella, 

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

Port San Diego. 

[FR Doc. 2017–17959 Filed 8–23–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 165 

[Docket Number USCG–2017–0718] 

RIN 1625–AA00 

Safety Zone; Village of Sodus Point 

Fireworks; Lake Ontario, Sodus Point, 

NY 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Temporary final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is 

establishing a temporary safety zone on 

Lake Ontario, Sodus Point, NY. This 

safety zone is intended to restrict 

vessels from portions of Lake Ontario 

during the Village of Sodus Point 

Fireworks display on September 2, 

2017. This temporary safety zone is 

necessary to protect mariners and 

vessels from the navigational hazards 

associated with a fireworks display. 

Entry of vessels or persons into this 

zone is prohibited unless specifically 

authorized by the Captain of the Port 

Buffalo. 

DATES: This rule is effective from 9:45 

p.m. to 11 p.m. on September 2, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: To view documents 

mentioned in this preamble as being 

available in the docket, go to http://

www.regulations.gov, type USCG–2017– 

0718 in the ‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click 

‘‘SEARCH.’’ Click on Open Docket 

Folder on the line associated with this 

rule. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions about this proposed 

rulemaking, call or email LT Michael 

Collet, Chief of Waterways Management, 

U.S. Coast Guard Sector Buffalo; 

telephone 716–843–9322, email D09- 

SMB-SECBuffalo-WWM@uscg.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Table of Abbreviations 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

FR Federal Register 

NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking 

§ Section 

U.S.C. United States Code 

II. Background Information and 

Regulatory History 

The Coast Guard is issuing this 

temporary 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. The event 

sponsor did not submit notice to the 

Coast Guard with sufficient time 

remaining before the event to publish an 

NPRM. Delaying the effective date of 

this rule to wait for a comment period 

to run would be impracticable and 

contrary to the public interest by 

inhibiting the Coast Guard’s ability to 

protect spectators and vessels from the 

hazards associated with a fireworks 

display. 

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast 

Guard finds that good cause exists for 

making this temporary rule effective less 

than 30 days after publication in the 

Federal Register because doing so 

would be impracticable and contrary to 

the public interest. Delaying the 

effective date would be contrary to the 

rule’s objectives of ensuring safety of 

life on the navigable waters and 

protection of persons and vessels in the 

vicinity of the fireworks display. 

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule 

The Coast Guard is issuing this rule 

under authority in 33 U.S.C. 1231. The 

Captain of the Port Buffalo (COTP) has 

determined that a fireworks display 

presents significant risks to public 

safety and property. Such hazards 

include premature and accidental 

detonations, dangerous projectiles, and 

falling or burning debris. This rule is 

needed to protect personnel, vessels, 

and the marine environment in the 

navigable waters within the safety zone 

while the fireworks display takes place. 

IV. Discussion of the Rule 

This rule establishes a safety zone on 

September 2, 2017 from 9:45 p.m. to 

11:00 p.m. The safety zone will 

encompass all waters of Lake Ontario; 

Sodus Point, NY contained within 560- 

foot radius of: 43°16′33′′ N., 076°58′27′′ 

W. (NAD 83). 

Entry into, transiting, or anchoring 

within the safety zone is prohibited 

unless authorized by the Captain of the 

Port Buffalo or his designated on-scene 

representative. The Captain of the Port 

or his designated on-scene 

representative may be contacted via 

VHF Channel 16. 

V. Regulatory Analyses 

We developed this rule after 

considering numerous statutes and 

Executive Orders related to rulemaking. 

Below we summarize our analyses 

based on a number of these statutes and 

Executive Orders, and we discuss First 

Amendment rights of protestors. 

A. Regulatory Planning and Review 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

direct agencies to assess the costs and 

benefits of available regulatory 

alternatives and, if regulation is 

necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits. 

Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the 

importance of quantifying both costs 

and benefits, of reducing costs, of 

harmonizing rules, and of promoting 

flexibility. Executive Order 13771 

(‘‘Reducing Regulation and Controlling 

Regulatory Costs’’), directs agencies to 

reduce regulation and control regulatory 

costs and provides that ‘‘for every one 

new regulation issued, at least two prior 

regulations be identified for elimination, 

and that the cost of planned regulations 

be prudently managed and controlled 

through a budgeting process.’’ 

This rule has not been designated a 

‘‘significant regulatory action,’’ under 

Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it 

has not been reviewed by the Office of 

Management and Budget. 

As this rule is not a significant 

regulatory action, this rule is exempt 

from the requirements of Executive 

Order 13771. See OMB’s Memorandum 

titled ‘‘Interim Guidance Implementing 

Section 2 of the Executive Order of 

January 30, 2017 titled ‘Reducing 

Regulation and Controlling Regulatory 

Costs’ ’’ (February 2, 2017). 

We conclude that this rule is not a 

significant regulatory action because we 

anticipate that it will have minimal 

impact on the economy, will not 

interfere with other agencies, will not 

adversely alter the budget of any grant 

or loan recipients, and will not raise any 

novel legal or policy issues. The safety 

zone created by this rule will be 

relatively small and enforced only 

during the fireworks display. Also, the 

safety zone is designed to minimize its 

impact on navigable waters. 

Furthermore, the safety zone has been 

designed to allow vessels to transit 

around it. Thus, restrictions on vessel 

movement within the particular areas 

are expected to be minimal. Under 

certain conditions, moreover, vessels 


rmajette on DSKBCKNHB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 163 / Thursday, August 24, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 40071 

may still transit through the safety zone 

when permitted by the Captain of the 

Port. 

B. Impact on Small Entities 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 

1980, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, as amended, 

requires Federal agencies to consider 

the potential impact of regulations on 

small entities during rulemaking. The 

term ‘‘small entities’’ comprises small 

businesses, not-for-profit organizations 

that are independently owned and 

operated and are not dominant in their 

fields, and governmental jurisdictions 

with populations of less than 50,000. 

The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 

605(b) that this rule will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

While some owners or operators of 

vessels intending to transit the safety 

zone may be small entities, for the 

reasons stated in section V.A above, this 

rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on any vessel owner 

or operator. 

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 rule. If the rule 

would affect your small business, 

organization, or governmental 

jurisdiction and you have questions 

concerning its provisions or options for 

compliance, please contact the person 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section. 

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. 

C. Collection of Information 

This rule will not call for a new 

collection of information under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501–3520). 

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 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 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. If you 

believe this rule has implications for 

federalism or Indian tribes, please 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section 

above. 

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 rule 

will not result in such an expenditure, 

we do discuss the effects of this rule 

elsewhere in this preamble. 

F. 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 (42 

U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and have 

determined that it is one of a category 

of actions that do not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant effect on 

the human environment. This rule 

establishes a temporary safety zone. It is 

categorically excluded under section 

2.B.2, figure 2–1, paragraph 34(g) of the 

Instruction, which pertains to 

establishment of safety zones. A Record 

of Environmental Consideration (REC) 

supporting this determination is 

available in the docket where indicated 

in the ADDRESSES section of this 

preamble. 

G. Protest Activities 

The Coast Guard respects the First 

Amendment rights of protesters. 

Protesters are asked to contact the 

person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

coordinate protest activities so that your 

message can be received without 

jeopardizing the safety or security of 

people, places or vessels. 

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 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 

33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; 

Department of Homeland Security Delegation 

No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. Add § 165.T09–0718 to read as 

follows: 

§ 165.T09–0718 Safety Zone; Village of 

Sodus Point Fireworks; Lake Ontario, 

Sodus Point, NY. 

(a) Location. The safety zone will 

encompass all waters of Lake Ontario; 

Sodus Point, NY contained within a 

560-foot radius of: 43°16′33′′ N., 

076°58′27′′ W. (NAD 83). 

(b) Enforcement period. This 

regulation will be enforced on 

September 2, 2017 from 9:45 p.m. until 

11:00 p.m. 

(c) Regulations. (1) In accordance with 

the general regulations in § 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 must 

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 


rmajette on DSKBCKNHB2PROD with RULES
40072 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 163 / Thursday, August 24, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

1EPA’s regulations governing the implementation 

of NSR permitting programs are contained in 40 

CFR 51.160—51.166; 52.21, 52.24; and part 51, 

appendix S. The CAA NSR program is composed 

of three separate programs: PSD, NNSR, and Minor 

NSR. PSD is established in part C of title I of the 

CAA and applies in areas that meet the NAAQS— 

‘‘attainment areas’’—as well as areas where there is 

insufficient information to determine if the area 

meets the NAAQS—‘‘unclassifiable areas.’’ The 

NNSR program is established in part D of title I of 

the CAA and applies in areas that are not in 

attainment of the NAAQS—‘‘nonattainment areas.’’ 

The Minor NSR program addresses construction or 

modification activities that do not qualify as 

‘‘major’’ and applies regardless of the designation 

of the area in which a source is located. Together, 

these programs are referred to as the NSR programs. 

directions given to them by the Captain 

of the Port Buffalo, or his on-scene 

representative. 

Dated: August 17, 2017. 

Joseph S. Dufresne, 

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

Port Buffalo. 

[FR Doc. 2017–17933 Filed 8–23–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2017–0371; FRL–9966–47– 

Region 4] 

Air Plan Approval; Alabama: PSD 

Replacement Units 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving a portion of 

Alabama’s State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) revision submitted by the State of 

Alabama, through the Alabama 

Department of Environmental 

Management (ADEM), on May 7, 2012. 

The portion of the revision that EPA is 

approving relates to the State’s 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) permitting regulations. In 

particular, the revision adds a definition 

of ‘‘replacement unit’’ and provides that 

a replacement unit is a type of existing 

emissions unit under the definition of 

‘‘emissions unit.’’ This action is being 

taken pursuant to the Clean Air Act 

(CAA or Act). 

DATES: This direct final rule is effective 

October 23, 2017 without further notice, 

unless EPA receives adverse comment 

by September 25, 2017. If EPA receives 

such comments, it will publish a timely 

withdrawal of the direct final rule in the 

Federal Register and inform the public 

that the rule will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No EPA–R04– 

OAR–2017–0371 at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Once submitted, comments cannot be 

edited or removed from Regulations.gov. 

EPA may publish any comment received 

to its public docket. Do not submit 

electronically any information you 

consider to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Multimedia submissions (audio, video, 

etc.) must be accompanied by a written 

comment. The written comment is 

considered the official comment and 

should include discussion of all points 

you wish to make. EPA will generally 

not consider comments or comment 

contents located outside of the primary 

submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or 

other file sharing system). For 

additional submission methods, the full 

EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Andres Febres of the Air Regulatory 

Management Section, Air Planning and 

Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides 

and Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Mr. 

Febres can be reached by telephone at 

(404) 562–8966 or via electronic mail at 

febres-martinez.andres@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. What action is the Agency taking? 

On May 7, 2012, ADEM submitted a 

SIP revision for EPA’s approval that 

includes, among other things, changes 

to Alabama’s PSD permitting regulations 

as part of the State’s New Source 

Review (NSR) permitting program.1 The 

NSR program, established in parts C and 

D of title I of the CAA and EPA’s 

implementing regulations at 40 CFR 

51.165, 40 CFR 51.166, and 40 CFR 

52.21, is a preconstruction review and 

permitting program applicable to new 

major stationary sources of regulated 

NSR pollutants and major modifications 

at existing major stationary sources. A 

major modification is defined as any 

physical change in or change in the 

method of operation of a major 

stationary source that would result in a 

significant emissions increase of a 

regulated NSR pollutant and a 

significant net emissions increase of that 

pollutant from the major stationary 

source. See 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1), 

51.166(b)(2)(i), and 52.21(b)(2)(i). 

In this document, EPA is taking direct 

final action to approve the portions of 

this submittal that make changes to 

ADEM Administrative Code Rule 335– 

3–14–.04—‘‘Air Permits Authorizing 

Construction in Clean Air Areas 

[Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

Permitting (PSD)].’’ Alabama’s May 7, 

2012, SIP submittal changes the PSD 

regulations at Rule 335–3–14–.04 by 

adding a definition of ‘‘replacement 

unit’’ and by modifying the definition of 

‘‘emissions unit’’ to expressly include 

replacement units as existing emissions 

units. As revised in the May 5, 2017, 

withdrawal letter discussed in Section 

III, below, these changes are similar to 

those made to the Federal PSD 

regulations at 40 CFR 52.21(b)(7) and 

(33) in the rule titled ‘‘Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) and 

Non-Attainment New Source Review 

(NSR): Reconsideration’’ See 68 FR 

63021 (November 7, 2003) (hereinafter 

referred to as the NSR Reform 

Reconsideration Rule). 

EPA is not taking action on the 

portions of Alabama’s May 7, 2012, 

submittal regarding ADEM 

Administrative Code Chapter 335–3– 

10—‘‘Standards of Performance for New 

Stationary Sources,’’ and Chapter 335– 

3–11—‘‘National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants.’’ In the 

submittal, Alabama acknowledges that 

these regulations are not part of 

Alabama’s SIP and states that the 

‘‘revisions to these [regulations] are not 

proposed to be incorporated into 

Alabama’s SIP.’’ 

II. Background 

A. NSR Reform 

On December 31, 2002, EPA 

published final rule revisions to the 

CAA’s PSD and Nonattainment New 

Source Review (NNSR) programs. See 

67 FR 80186 (hereinafter referred to as 

the 2002 NSR Rule). The revisions 

included several major changes to the 

NSR program, including the addition of 

an actual-to-projected-actual emissions 

test for determining NSR applicability 

for existing emissions units. 

Following publication, EPA received 

numerous petitions requesting 

reconsideration of several aspects of the 

final rule. On July 30, 2003 (68 FR 

44624), EPA granted reconsideration on 

six issues, including whether 

replacement units should be allowed to 

use the actual-to-projected-actual 

applicability test to determine whether 

installing a replacement unit results in 

a significant emissions increase. On 

November 7, 2003, EPA published the 

NSR Reform Reconsideration Rule. See 

68 FR 63021. In the reconsideration 


rmajette on DSKBCKNHB2PROD with RULES