        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
        40 CFR Part 52
        [EPA-R06-OAR-2007-0314; FRL-9479-9]
        Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Oklahoma; Interstate Transport of Pollution

          AGENCY:
          Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:

          EPA is proposing to take action on portions of State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of Oklahoma to address Clean Air Act requirements that prohibit air emissions which will contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other State for the 1997 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS or standards), the 1997 fine particulate matter (PM2.5) NAAQS and the 2006 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is basing these proposed actions on the final determinations concluded within the Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR or Transport Rule) and proposed determination within the Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPR). EPA is proposing to disapprove, or in the alternative, approve the portion of the submittal demonstrating Oklahoma does not interfere with maintenance of the ozone NAAQS in other states. EPA intends to finalize approval or disapproval based on its final determination for the SNPR regarding Oklahoma for the ozone NAAQS. EPA is also proposing to approve the portion of the submittal demonstrating Oklahoma does not contribute significantly to nonattainment of the ozone NAAQS in other states. Finally, EPA is proposing to approve the portions of the submittals addressing Oklahoma's impacts for the PM2.5 NAAQS in other states. This action is being taken under section 110 of the CAA.

          DATES:
          Written comments must be received on or before November 16, 2011.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit your comments, identified by Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2007-0314, by one of the following methods:
          • Federal e-Rulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

          • Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
          • E-mail: Mr. Guy Donaldson at donaldson.guy@epa.gov. Please also send a copy by e-mail to the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section below.

          • Fax: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), at fax number 214-665-7263.
          • Mail: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
          • Hand or Courier Delivery: Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. Such deliveries are accepted only between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. weekdays, and not on legal holidays. Special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information.

            Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2007-0314. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http://www.regulations.gov
             or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is an “anonymous access” system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through http://www.regulations.gov your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

            Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. The file will be made available by appointment for public inspection in the Region 6 FOIA Review Room between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. weekdays except for legal holidays. Contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT paragraph below or Mr. Bill Deese at 214-665-7253 to make an appointment. If possible, please make the appointment at least two working days in advance of your visit. There will be a 15 cent per page fee for making photocopies of documents. On the day of the visit, please check in at the EPA Region 6 reception area at 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas.
          The state submittal is also available for public inspection during official business hours, by appointment, at the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality, 707 North Robinson, P.O. Box 1677, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73101-1677.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          Carl Young, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone (214) 665-6645; e-mail address young.carl@epa.gov.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Throughout this document wherever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean the EPA.
        Outline

          I. Background
          A. Clean Air Act Background
          B. Oklahoma's Submittals
          C. EPA's Analysis and Actions for the Cross State Air Pollution Rule
          II. Proposed Action
          A. Disapproval or Approval of the Submittal for the Interference With Maintenance Requirement for the 1997 Ozone NAAQS
          B. Approval of the Submittal for the Significant Contribution to Nonattainment Requirement for the 1997 Ozone NAAQS

          C. Approval of the Submittals for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS
          III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

        I. Background
        A. Clean Air Act Background
        Section 110(a) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires each state to develop a state implementation plan (SIP) that provides for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). We establish NAAQS under section 109 of the CAA. Currently, the NAAQS address six criteria pollutants: Carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, lead, particulate matter, and sulfur dioxide.

        SIPs can be extensive, containing state regulations or other enforceable measures and various types of supporting information, such as emissions inventories, monitoring networks, and modeling demonstrations. The “good neighbor” provisions in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) require each SIP to prohibit emissions that adversely affect another State in the ways contemplated in the statute. Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) contains four distinct requirements related to the impacts of interstate transport. The SIP must prevent sources in the State from emitting pollutants in amounts which will: (1) Contribute significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in other States; (2) interfere with maintenance of the NAAQS in other States; (3) interfere with provisions to prevent significant deterioration of air quality in other States; or (4) interfere with efforts to protect visibility in other States. It should be noted that this proposed rulemaking action addresses only those portions of Oklahoma's May 1, 2007, and April 5, 2011, submittals, which address the 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) requirements relating to significant contribution to nonattainment or interference with maintenance in another State with respect to the 1997 ozone and 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. At this time, EPA is not taking action on any additional requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) or on any other portions of Oklahoma's May 1, 2007, and April 5, 2011, submittals.1

            1 Previously we took the following actions on the May 1, 2007, Oklahoma submittal for the 1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS: (1) We approved the portion demonstrating Oklahoma emissions do not interfere with prevention of significant deterioration measures in any other state (November 26, 2010, 75 FR 72695); (2) we proposed to partially approve and partially disapprove the portion demonstrating that Oklahoma emissions do not interfere with visibility protection measures required in any other state (March 22, 2011, 76 FR 16168).

        Within 3 years of our promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, States are required to update or revise the SIP and submit the revisions to us for approval and incorporation into the Federally enforceable SIP (CAA 110(a)(1)). These plans should address, among other things the requirements of Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i). In 1997, we revised the NAAQS for ozone and particulate matter. For ozone we established new 8-hour standards of 0.08 parts per million (62 FR 38856). For particulate matter we established new annual average and 24-hour standards for fine particles, using particulate matter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5) as the indicator (62 FR 38652). In 2006, we revised the PM2.5 NAAQS by decreasing the level of the 24-hour standard from 65 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) to 35 μg/m3. We retained the annual PM2.5 NAAQS of 15 μg/m3. This action is being taken in response to the promulgation of these NAAQS.
        B. Oklahoma's Submittals

        On May 1, 2007, the State of Oklahoma submitted a SIP revision to address the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. On December 5, 2007, the State submitted supplemental information.2

           On April 5, 2011, the State submitted a letter certifying that their SIP meets the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2), including 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. The submittals document the State's assessments that Oklahoma emissions will not contribute significantly to nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance, in any other State for the 1997 ozone, 1997 PM2.5 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. The submittals are available electronically through the http://www.regulations.gov Web site (Docket No. EPA-R06-OAR-2007-0314).

            2 The supplemental information provided an assessment of Oklahoma's impact on Kenosha County, Wisconsin, and Cook County, Illinois. Kenosha County, Wisconsin is designated as nonattainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. Cook County, Illinois is designated as nonattainment for the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS.

        Consistent with EPA guidance at the time and EPA's approach in the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR), the State's May 1, 2007, submittal focused primarily on whether emissions from Oklahoma sources significantly contribute to nonattainment of the 1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS in other states.3
           The State did not evaluate whether Oklahoma emissions interfere with maintenance of these NAAQS in other states separately from significant contribution to nonattainment in other states. Instead, the state presumed that if Oklahoma sources were not significantly contributing to violations of the NAAQS in other states, then no further specific evaluation was necessary for purposes of the interfere with maintenance element of section 110(a)(2)(D). However, CAIR was remanded to EPA, in part because the court found that EPA had not correctly addressed whether emissions from sources in a state interfere with maintenance of the standards in other states.4
           Therefore, EPA must evaluate the May 1, 2007, Oklahoma submittal in light of the decision of the court.

            3 On August 15, 2006, we issued our “Guidance for State Implementation Plan (SIP) Submissions to Meet Current Outstanding Obligations Under Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 8-Hour Ozone and PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards”.

            4 For more discussion on the court remand of CAIR please see our August 8, 2011, CSAPR (76 FR 48208).

        C. EPA Analyses and Actions for the Cross State Air Pollution Rule

        On August 2, 2010, we proposed the “Cross State Air Pollution Rule” (CSAPR or Transport Rule) for State emissions that contribute significantly to nonattainment in, or interfere with maintenance by, downwind states for the 1997 ozone, 1997 PM2.5 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS (75 FR 45210). The proposal responded to the court remand of CAIR in part by independently analyzing whether a state's emissions interfere with maintenance of the 1997 ozone, 1997 PM2.5 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. We proposed to include Oklahoma in the CSAPR for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. Our analysis for the proposal identified Oklahoma emissions as significantly contributing to nonattainment and interfering with maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS in the Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas area. Furthermore, our analysis in the proposed CSAPR also found that Oklahoma emissions did not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. The comment period for this proposed rule closed on October 1, 2010.
        In the final CSAPR, published in the Federal Register on August 8, 2011, EPA made a final determination that Oklahoma does not significantly contribute to nonattainment and interfere with maintenance with respect to the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS in other states (76 FR 48208). However, EPA's analysis in the final CSAPR also demonstrated that six states, including Oklahoma, should be required to reduce ozone-season NOx emissions to reduce ozone impacts at certain locations identified as maintenance receptors that were not identified in the modeling conducted for the proposal. This analysis conducted for the final CSAPR found Oklahoma emissions interfering with maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS in Allegan County, Michigan, but not significantly contributing to nonattainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS in any other state. In the proposed and final CSAPR, EPA explicitly gave independent meaning to the “interfere with maintenance” prong of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) by evaluating contributions to identified maintenance receptors that may have difficulty maintaining the NAAQS in the future. EPA found in the final CSAPR analysis that Oklahoma emissions contribute to maintenance problems at the Allegan County, Michigan maintenance receptor, and absent the Allegan County maintenance receptor Oklahoma would not be covered by the CSAPR ozone-season program. Based on this analysis, we published a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPR) to implement the ozone-season NOx program in the final CSAPR as the FIP for Oklahoma to address emissions identified as interfering with maintenance with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS (July 11, 2011, 76 FR 40662). In the SNPR, EPA took comment on whether there were errors in the Agency's application of the CSAPR methodologies with respect to Oklahoma and the 1997 ozone NAAQS, and did not take comment on any aspect of the final CSAPR. The comment period for this rule closed on August 22, 2011.

        The methodology used to analyze the impact of Oklahoma emissions with respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS is described in detail in the preamble to the final CSAPR and in the Technical Support Documents entitled “Air Quality Modeling Final Rule TSD” and “Significant Contribution and State Emission Budgets Final Rule TSD”. These documents can be found in the electronic docket for the CSAPR and are available through the http://www.regulations.gov Web site (Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0491).

        In this notice, EPA is proposing to take action on the basis of determinations that have been or will be made in other final agency actions that were taken after providing a full opportunity for notice and comment. Therefore, in this notice, EPA is taking comment only on its conclusions that the determinations with respect to Oklahoma made in the final CSAPR and the determination with respect to Oklahoma that will be made in final action on the SNPR provide a basis for the actions proposed in this notice. EPA provided an opportunity for public comment, in the SNPR, on its proposed determination that Oklahoma interferes with maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS because it is linked to an ozone maintenance receptor identified in the modeling for the final CSAPR. EPA is not taking additional comment on that proposed determination. EPA also provided an ample opportunity to comment, during the CSAPR rulemaking, on the determinations made in the final CSAPR on Oklahoma's significant contribution to nonattainment or interference with maintenance with respect to the 1997 and the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA is not taking comment on these or any other determinations made in the final CSAPR, or reopening any aspect of CSAPR or the SNPR for public comment. EPA is also not taking comment on any aspect of the final CSAPR, including the methodology used to identify maintenance receptors or the methodology used to identify Oklahoma's specific contribution or interference with maintenance. EPA received numerous comments on the proposed CSAPR and on the associated Notices of Data Availability, and the SNPR, and considered, (or, in the case of the SNPR, is considering), all comments received during the comment periods for these actions.
        II. Proposed Action

        In this action, EPA is taking comment only on its conclusions that the final CSAPR and the SNPR provide a basis for proposing: (1) Disapproval, and in the alternative proposing approval, for the portion of the Oklahoma SIP revision addressing the interference with maintenance requirement for the 1997 ozone NAAQS; (2) approval of the portion of the Oklahoma SIP revision addressing the significant contribution to nonattainment requirements for the 1997 ozone NAAQS; and (3) approval of the portion of the Oklahoma SIP revision that addresses the significant contribution to nonattainment or interference with maintenance requirements for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS.
        A. Disapproval or Approval of the Submittal for the Interference With Maintenance Requirement for the 1997 Ozone NAAQS
        We are proposing to disapprove and, in the alternative, proposing to approve the portion of the SIP revision submitted on May 1, 2007, to address the interference with maintenance requirement for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. We intend that our final action (disapproval or approval) will be based on final action for Oklahoma in the supplemental Cross State Air Pollution rule discussed above. We intend to disapprove this portion of the SIP revision if, in the final supplemental CASPR rule, we finalize our determination that Oklahoma emissions are interfering with maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS. EPA is in the course of reviewing and preparing responses to the comments submitted on the SNPR regarding EPA's modeling and the adjustments made to its technical analyses for the final CSAPR. If this review alternatively indicates that Oklahoma should not be subject to and covered by the final supplemental rule, EPA will take final action to approve this portion of Oklahoma's SIP revision for the transport element of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) that Oklahoma emissions are not interfering with maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS. As discussed previously, we are not reopening for comment the analyses done for the final CSAPR nor the SNPR.
        B. Approval of the Submittal for the Significant Contribution to Nonattainment Requirement for the 1997 Ozone NAAQS
        We are proposing to approve the portion of the SIP revision submitted on May 1, 2007, to address the significant contribution to nonattainment requirement for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Our proposal is based on our determination concluded within the final CSAPR that Oklahoma emissions do not contribute significantly to nonattainment of the 1997 ozone NAAQS. As discussed previously, we are not reopening for comment the analyses done for the final CSAPR nor the SNPR.
        C. Approval of the Submittals for the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS

        We are proposing to approve the portions of the SIP revisions submitted on May 1, 2007, and April 5, 2011, to address the significant contribution to nonattainment or interference with maintenance requirements for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. Our proposal is based on our determination concluded within the final Cross State Air Pollution rule that Oklahoma emissions do not contribute significantly to nonattainment, or interfere with maintenance for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS and the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. As discussed previously, we are not reopening for comment the analyses done for the final CSAPR nor the SNPR.
        III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
        Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations and disapprove. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to act on state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
        A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
        This proposed action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011).
        B. Paperwork Reduction Act

        This proposed action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq, because this proposed SIP action under section 110 of the CAA will not in-and-of itself create any new information collection burdens but simply approves or disapproves certain State requirements for inclusion into the SIP. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
        C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
        The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.

        After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule does not impose any requirements or create impacts on small entities. This proposed SIP action under section 110 of the CAA will not in-and-of itself create any new requirements but simply approves or disapproves certain State requirements for inclusion into the SIP. Accordingly, it affords no opportunity for EPA to fashion for small entities less burdensome compliance or reporting requirements or timetables or exemptions from all or part of the rule. The fact that the CAA prescribes that various consequences (e.g., emission limitations) may or will flow from this action does not mean that EPA either can or must conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis for this action. Therefore, this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
        We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of this proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.
        D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
        This action contains no Federal mandates under the provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538 for State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. EPA has determined that the proposed disapproval action does not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This action proposes to approve or disapprove pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.
        E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
        Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have “substantial direct effects 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.”
        This proposed action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects 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, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it merely approves or disapproves certain State requirements for inclusion into the SIP and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action.
        F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
        This proposed action does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP submittals EPA is proposing to approve or disapprove would not 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. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. Consistent with EPA policy, EPA nonetheless is offering consultation to Tribes regarding this rulemaking action. EPA will respond to relevant comments in the final rulemaking action.
        G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
        EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This proposed action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This proposed SIP action under section 110 of the CAA will not in-and-of itself create any new regulations but simply approves or disapproves certain State requirements for inclusion into the SIP.
        H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
        This proposed action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
        I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

        Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (“NTTAA”), Public Law 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
        The EPA believes that this proposed action is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of NTTAA because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA.
        J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
        Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States.
        EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental justice in this proposed action. In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve or disapprove state choices, based on the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely proposes to approve or disapprove certain State requirements for inclusion into the SIP under section 110 of the CAA and will not in-and-of itself create any new requirements. Accordingly, it 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.

          List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
          Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Particulate matter, Sulfur dioxide.

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

          Dated: October 6, 2011.
          Al Armendariz,
          Regional Administrator, Region 6.

      [FR Doc. 2011-26763 Filed 10-14-11; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


        DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
        National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
        50 CFR Part 648
        [Docket No. 080123074-8572-01]
        RIN 0648-AW31
        Fisheries of the Northeastern United States; Northeast Multispecies Fishery; Scallop Dredge Exemption Areas; Addition of Monkfish Incidental Catch Trip Limits

          AGENCY:
          National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule, request for comments.

          SUMMARY:
          NMFS proposes to modify the regulations implementing the Northeast (NE) Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (FMP) to create three Scallop Exemptions that are identical to the current scallop exemptions, except for the addition of an incidental monkfish catch limit. These new scallop exemptions would be restricted to vessels issued either a General Category Atlantic sea scallop permit or a limited access Atlantic sea scallop permit (when not fishing under a scallop days-at-sea (DAS) limitation), when fishing for scallops with small dredge gear (combined width not to exceed 10.5 ft (3.2 m)). Vessels that land an incidental catch of monkfish within these new scallop exemptions would be required to possess a valid monkfish Incidental Catch permit. The intent of this action is to allow small scallop dredge vessels to land monkfish that they are currently discarding consistent with the bycatch reduction objectives of the FMP and National Standard 9 of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.

          DATES:
          Comments must be received no later than 5 p.m., eastern daylight time, on May 14, 2008.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments, identified by RIN 0648-AW31, by any one of the following methods:

          • Electronic Submissions: Submit all electronic public comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal http://www.regulations.gov

          • Fax: (978) 281-9135, Attn: Timothy Cardiasmenos

          • Mail: Patricia A. Kurkul, Regional Administrator, Northeast Region, National Marine Fisheries Service, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-2298. Please write on the envelope: Comments on the Addition of a Monkfish Incidental Catch Limit within the Existing Scallop Exemptions (RIN 0648-AW31).

          Instructions: All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted to http://www.regulations.gov, without change. All Personal Identifying Information (for example, name, address, etc.) voluntarily submitted by the commenter may be publicly accessible. Do not submit Confidential Business Information or otherwise sensitive or protected information.
          NMFS will accept anonymous comments. Attachments to electronic comments will be accepted in Microsoft Word, Excel, WordPerfect, or Adobe PDF file formats only.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Timothy Cardiasmenos, Fishery Management Specialist, (978) 281-9204, FAX (978) 281-9135.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        Background
        Current regulations, implemented under Framework Adjustment 9, and expanded under Amendment 7 to the FMP, contain a NE multispecies fishing mortality and bycatch reduction measure that is applied to the Gulf of Maine (GOM), Georges Bank (GB), and Southern New England (SNE) Exemption Areas. This measure prohibits vessels from fishing in these areas unless they are fishing under a NE multispecies or a scallop DAS allocation, are fishing with exempted gear, are fishing under the Small Vessel Handgear (A or B) or Party/Charter permit restrictions, or are fishing in an exempted fishery. The procedure for adding, modifying, or deleting fisheries from the list of exempted fisheries is found in § 648.80. A fishery may be exempted by the Administrator, Northeast Region, NMFS (RA), after consultation with the New England Fishery Management Council (Council), if the RA determines, based on available data or information, that the bycatch of regulated species is, or can be reduced to, on average, less than 5 percent per trip, by weight on board, and that such exemption will not jeopardize the fishing mortality objectives of the FMP.
        At present, there are three scallop exemptions for scallop dredge vessels when fishing under the scallop General Category permit, or under the limited access scallop permit when not fishing under a scallop DAS. They are referred to as: The GOM Scallop Dredge Exemption Area, established in Framework 21 (February 1997); the SNE Scallop Dredge Exemption Area, established in Amendment 13 (April 2004); and the Great South Channel (GSC) Scallop Dredge Exemption Area, established by the authority of the RA (August 2006). On November 2, 2007, a request was submitted on behalf of the General Category scallop fleet to establish an incidental monkfish catch limit, of 50 lb (23 kg) tail weight or 166 lb (75 kg) whole weight per trip, consistent with the Monkfish FMP, within the three scallop exemptions. This rule proposes three new exemptions, identical to the existing scallop exemption areas, described at § 648.80(a)(11)(i)(A), (a)(18)(ii)(A), and (b)(11)(ii)(A), with the addition of a 50-lb (23-kg) tail weight or 166-lb (75-kg) whole weight incidental monkfish catch limit per trip, provided the fishery does not jeopardize the fishing mortality objectives of the FMP.
        The data analyzed for this action consists of observer data from both General Category and limited access scallop dredge trips within the GOM, GSC, and SNE scallop exemption areas from 2001 to 2007. A total of 85 General Category trips and 198 limited access trips were observed during that period. Bycatch rates were calculated on a trip-by-trip basis by adding up the total weight of NE multispecies, scallops (in-shell weight), and all other catch on each observed trip, and then calculating the percentage of the total catch represented by regulated NE multispecies. The percent bycatch of regulated NE multispecies in the exemption areas ranged from 0 to 10.33 percent in General Category trips (N=85), and 0 to 8.6 percent in limited access trips (N=198). The mean percent bycatch of regulated NE multispecies by weight of the total catch across all areas in the General Category and limited access fisheries was less than 1 percent. From a total of 85 observed General Category trips into the exemption areas, the mean percent bycatch was 0.97 percent of the total catch. From the 198 observed limited access scallop dredge trips into those same areas, the mean percent bycatch was estimated to be 0.93 percent of the total catch.
        Monkfish discards were analyzed within this same dataset. Monkfish discards within the current exemption areas ranged from 0 to 611 lb (0-277 kg) tail weight per trip in the General Category fishery (N=85). From a total of 85 General Category trips into the current exemption areas, the mean monkfish discard was 48.1 lb (22 kg) tail weight per trip, and the mean trip was 0.44 days (11 hr). The proposed level of monkfish incidental bycatch within the scallop exemption areas is 50 lb (23 kg) tail weight or 166 lb (75 kg) whole weight per trip. This level of monkfish fishing mortality from scallop dredge vessels is within the allowable limit specified under Framework 4 of the Monkfish FMP (October 22, 2007, i.e., 150 lb (68 kg) tail weight or 498 lb (226 kg) whole weight per trip).
        GSC Scallop Dredge Exemption Area
        From a total of 38 observed General Category trips into the current GSC Scallop Exemption, the mean monkfisk catch per trip was 28.98 lb (13 kg) tail weight, and only 1 trip discarded more than 150 lb (68 kg) tail weight. Monkfish bycatch ranged between 0-302.71 lb (0-137 kg) tail weight per trip.
        GOM Scallop Dredge Exemption Area
        From a total of 29 observed General Category trips into the GOM Scallop Exemption, the mean monkfish catch per trip was 40.6 lb (18 kg) tail weight, and only 3 trips discarded in excess of 150 lb (68 kg) tail weight. Monkfish bycatch ranged between 0-425 lb (0-193 kg) tail weight per trip.
        SNE Scallop Dredge Exemption Area
        From a total of 18 observed General Category trips into the SNE Scallop Exemption, the mean monkfish catch per trip was 100.5 lb (46 kg) tail weight, and only 3 trips discarded more than 150 lb (68 kg) tail weight. Monkfish bycatch ranged between 0-611 lb (277 kg) tail weight per trip.
        The observed level of monkfish discard within the current scallop exemptions, as detailed above, is consistent with the proposed monkfish incidental catch limits. This level of monkfish fishing mortality in the General Category scallop dredge fleet was previously analyzed within Framework 4 to the Monkfish FMP (October 22, 2007). Since the data indicate that the proposed monkfish incidental catch limit is currently being discarded, no change in fishing behavior is expected, and it is not anticipated that there will be an increase in regulated species bycatch. The proposed scallop exemptions, identical to the existing scallop exemptions with the addition of an incidental catch of monkfish, are therefore expected to meet both the bycatch and the fishing mortality requirements of the regulations.
        Proposed Measures
        GOM, SNE, and the GSC Scallop Dredge Exemption Areas

        Based on the analysis of available data, the bycatch of regulated species by scallop dredge vessels is less than, on average, 5 percent per trip, by weight on board, within the exemption areas and the monkfish bycatch is consistent with the incidental catch level analyzed within the Monkfish FMP. The data analysis shows that, on average, scallop dredge vessels are currently discarding 48.1 lb (22 kg) tail weight of monkfish per trip within the three exemption areas, a level consistent with the proposed level of monkfish incidental catch (50 lb (23 kg) tail weight or 166 lb (75 kg) whole weight per trip). In addition, there are no data to suggest that modifying the present exemptions to accommodate a monkfish incidental catch at 50 lb (23 kg) tail weight or 166 lb (75 kg) whole weight per trip would cause a shift in effort towards monkfish or NE multispecies. Therefore, the RA has determined that a monkfish incidental catch of 50 lb (23 kg) tail weight or 166 lb (75 kg) whole weight per trip, within the GOM, SNE, and GSC Scallop Exemptions, meets the exemption requirements specified in § 648.80(a)(8), and would not be inconsistent with the monkfish fishing mortality goals of the Monkfish FMP.
        Therefore, this rule proposes to create three scallop exemptions (GOM, SNE, and GSC), identical to the existing scallop exemptions, with the addition of a 50-lb (23-kg) tail weight or 166-lb (75-kg) whole weight per trip monkfish incidental catch possession limit. These new scallop exemptions would be restricted to vessels issued either a General Category Atlantic sea scallop permit or a limited access sea scallop permit (when not fishing under a scallop DAS limitation), when fishing with small dredges (combined width not to exceed 10.5 ft (3.2 m)). Vessels that land an incidental catch of monkfish within these new scallop exemptions would be required to possess, and have onboard, a monkfish Incidental Catch permit.
        Classification
        NMFS has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the FMP and preliminarily determined that the rule is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and other applicable laws.
        This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
        An Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis was not prepared, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 603, as it has been determined that this rulemaking would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A description of the reasons why this action is being considered, as well as the objectives of and legal basis for this proposed rule is found in the preamble to this proposed rule. There are no Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the proposed rule. This action proposes to create three scallop exemptions for General Category scallop vessels, or limited access scallop vessels not fishing on a DAS allocation, identical to the current scallop exemptions, with the addition of an incidental catch of monkfish. This action was categorically excluded under the National Environmental Policy Act, as an action that includes minor technical additions, corrections, or changes to an FMP.
        The economic impacts of the proposed action are expected to be minimal and positive. This action would allow the General Category scallop fleet, while fishing under a scallop exemption, to land up to 50 lb (23 kg) tail weight or 166 lb (75 kg) whole weight of monkfish per trip, in addition to scallops. This would allow the fleet to utilize these resources in a manner consistent with the bycatch and mortality objectives of the FMP. The proposed incidental catch of monkfish is small, and as such is expected to minimally increase revenues for scallop dredge vessels fishing under the General Category permit provisions.

          List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 648

        Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

          Dated: April 23, 2008.
          Samuel D. Rauch III,
          Deputy Assistant Administrator For Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service.

        For the reasons stated in the preamble 50 CFR part 648 is proposed to be amended as follows:

          PART 648—FISHERIES OF THE NORTHEASTERN UNITED STATES

        1. The authority citation for part 648 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
          16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

        2. In § 648.80, paragraphs (a)(8)(iv) introductory text, (a)(11)(i)(A), (a)(18)(ii)(A), and (b)(11)(ii)(A) are revised to read as follows:

          § 648.80
          NE Multispecies regulated mesh areas and restrictions on gear and methods of fishing.

          (a) * * *
          (8) * * *
          (iv) Unless otherwise specified within the exempted fisheries authorized under this paragraph (a)(8), incidental catch is restricted, at a minimum, to the following:

          (11) * * *
          (i) * * *
          (A) A vessel fishing in the GOM Scallop Dredge Fishery Exemption Area specified in this paragraph (a)(11) may not fish for, possess on board, or land any species of fish other than Atlantic sea scallops and up to 50 lb (23 kg) tail weight or 166 lb (75 kg) whole weight of monkfish per trip.

          (18) * * *
          (ii) * * *
          (A) A vessel fishing in the Great South Channel Scallop Dredge Exemption Area specified in this paragraph (a)(18) may not fish for, possess on board, or land any species of fish other than Atlantic sea scallops and up to 50 lb (23 kg) tail weight or 166 lb (75 kg) whole weight of monkfish per trip.

          (b) * * *
          (11) * * *
          (ii) * * *
          (A) A vessel fishing in the SNE Scallop Dredge Exemption Area may not fish for, posses on board, or land any species of fish other than Atlantic sea scallops and up to 50 lb (23 kg) tail weight or 166 lb (75 kg) whole weight of monkfish per trip.

      [FR Doc. E8-9353 Filed 4-28-08; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 3510-22-S


        DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
        GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
        NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
        48 CFR Parts 22 and 52
        [FAR Case 2019-002; Docket No. FAR-2019-0004, Sequence No. 1]
        RIN 9000-AN85
        Federal Acquisition Regulation: Recreational Services on Federal Lands

          AGENCY:
          Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).

          ACTION:
          Proposed rule.

          SUMMARY:
          DoD, GSA, and NASA are proposing to amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to implement a Department of Labor (DOL) rule, which exempts certain contracts for seasonal recreational services or seasonal recreational equipment rental for the general public on Federal lands from an Executive Order minimum wage.

          DATES:
          Interested parties should submit written comments to the Regulatory Secretariat Division at one of the addresses shown below on or before December 20, 2019 to be considered in the formation of the final rule.

          ADDRESSES:
          Submit comments in response to FAR Case 2019-002 by any of the following methods:
          • Regulations.gov: http://www.regulations.gov. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by searching for “FAR Case 2019-002”. Select the link “Comment Now” that corresponds with “FAR Case 2019-002”. Follow the instructions provided on the screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “FAR Case 2019-002” on your attached document.
          • Mail: General Services Administration, Regulatory Secretariat Division (MVCB), ATTN: Lois Mandell, 1800 F Street NW, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20405.

            Instructions: Please submit comments only and cite “FAR Case 2019-002” in all correspondence related to this case. All comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal and/or business confidential information provided. To confirm receipt of your comment(s), please check www.regulations.gov,
            approximately two to three days after submission to verify posting (except allow 30 days for posting of comments submitted by mail).

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Mr. Kevin Funk, Procurement Analyst, at 202-357-5805 or kevin.funk@gsa.gov for clarification of content. For information pertaining to status or publication schedules, contact the Regulatory Secretariat Division at 202-501-4755. Please cite “FAR Case 2019-002.”

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        I. Background

        DoD, GSA, and NASA are proposing to amend the FAR to implement a DOL rule published in the Federal Register at 83 FR 48537 on September 26, 2018. The DOL rule implemented Executive Order (E.O.) 13838, Exemption From Executive Order 13658 for Recreational Services on Federal Lands (May 25, 2018, published June 1, 2018, 83 FR 25341), which exempted certain contracts and contract-like instruments from the requirements of E.O. 13658, Establishing a Minimum Wage for Contractors. E.O. 13658 raised the hourly minimum wage paid to workers performing on or in connection with covered Federal contracts to: (i) $10.10 per hour, beginning January 1, 2015; and (ii) beginning January 1, 2016, and annually thereafter, an amount determined by the Secretary of Labor in accordance with the E.O. As of January 1, 2019, E.O. 13658 raised minimum wage to $10.60 per hour (83 FR 44906).
        E.O. 13838 exempts contracts or contract-like instruments entered into with the Federal Government in connection with seasonal recreational services or seasonal recreational equipment rental for the general public on Federal lands from the requirements of E.O. 13658; lodging and food services are not exempted.
        The purpose of this rule is to make a conforming change in the FAR. This proposed rule implements E.O. 13838 by amending FAR 22.1903(b)(2) and FAR clause 52.222-55(c)(2) to conform to the DOL rule by adding seasonal recreational services or seasonal recreational equipment rental for the general public on Federal lands to the list of exemptions.
        II. Discussion and Analysis
        This rule proposes to amend the FAR to be consistent with the DOL final rule as follows:
        • Adds a definition of “seasonal recreational services” at FAR 22.1901 and 52.222-55, Minimum Wages Under Executive Order 13658.
        • Adds seasonal recreational services or seasonal equipment rental for the general public on Federal lands to the list of exceptions from the policies and procedures to implement E.O. 13658 and DOL's implementing regulations at FAR 22.1903 and 52.222-55. Lodging and food services are not exempted.
        • Makes conforming changes at 52.212-5, 52.213-4, and 52.244-6.
        III. Applicability to Contracts at or Below the Simplified Acquisition Threshold (SAT) and for Commercial Items, Including Commercially Available Off-the-Shelf (COTS) Items
        This proposed rule does not add any new provisions or clauses. The rule does not change the applicability of existing provisions or clauses to contracts at or below the SAT and contracts for the acquisition of commercial items, including COTS items. The FAR clause at 52.222-55, Minimum Wages Under Executive Order 13658, is prescribed for use in contracts valued at or below the SAT and for the acquisition of commercial items. Under this rule, acquisitions below the SAT or for commercial items involving seasonal recreational services or seasonal recreational equipment rental for the general public on Federal lands would be exempt from FAR clause 52.222-55. Lodging and food services are not exempted.
        IV. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
        E.O.s 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule is not a significant regulatory action, and therefore, was not subject to review under section 6(b) of E.O. 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, dated September 30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804.
        V. Executive Order 13371
        This rule is not subject to E.O. 13771, Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs, because the rule is not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866.
        VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act

        DoD, GSA, and NASA do not expect this rule to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq. However, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) has been performed and is summarized as follows:

          This action is necessary to implement a DOL rule dated September 26, 2018, which implemented E.O. 13838, Exemption from Executive Order 13658 for Recreational Services on Federal Lands (May 25, 2018, published June 1, 2018, 83 FR 25341). E.O. 13658 made contracts or contract-like instruments entered into with the Federal Government in connection with seasonal recreational services or seasonal recreational equipment rental for the general public on Federal lands exempt from the minimum wage requirements under E.O. 13658, dated February 12, 2014; lodging and food services are not exempted.
          The objective of this rule is to make a conforming change in the FAR to conform to the DOL rule to implement E.O. 13838, dated September 26, 2018. This rule simply provides a conforming amendment to FAR 22.1903(b)(2)(iii) and FAR clause 52.222-55(c)(2)(ii) to conform to the DOL rule by adding seasonal recreational services or seasonal recreational equipment rental for the general public on Federal lands to the list of exemptions. Lodging and food services are not exempted. This action is limited to implementing E.O. 13838 by inserting into the FAR the language that E.O. 13838 inserted into E.O. 13658. The legal basis for these changes is E.O. 13838.

          This rule is not expected to have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601, et seq., because the rule only applies to contracts for seasonal recreational services or seasonal recreational equipment rental. Lodging and food services are not exempted. On average for fiscal years 2016-2018, there were 229 awards reported on an annual basis in the Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) for seasonal recreational services and seasonal recreational equipment rental, of which 153 were awarded to small business entities. The FPDS data could not isolate which of the awards were for services or rentals on Federal lands, so the average number of awards for seasonal recreational services or seasonal recreational equipment rental to the general public on Federal lands could be even lower. Furthermore, this rule is expected to have a beneficial impact on small businesses as it relaxes the burden on small businesses.
          There are no reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements in this rule.
          The rule does not duplicate, overlap, or conflict with any other Federal rules. DoD, GSA, and NASA were unable to identify any alternatives to the rule that would reduce the impact on small entities and still meet the requirements of the DOL rule.

        The Regulatory Secretariat Division has submitted a copy of the IRFA to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration. A copy of the IRFA may be obtained from the Regulatory Secretariat Division. DoD, GSA, and NASA invite comments from small business concerns and other interested parties on the expected impact of this rule on small entities.
        DoD, GSA, and NASA will also consider comments from small entities concerning the existing regulations in subparts affected by the rule in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 610. Interested parties must submit such comments separately and should cite 5 U.S.C 610 (FAR Case 2019-002), in correspondence.
        VII. Paperwork Reduction Act
        The rule does not contain any information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).

          List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 22 and 52
          Government procurement.

          William F. Clark,
          Director, Office of Government-wide Acquisition Policy, Office of Acquisition Policy, Office of Government-wide Policy.

        Therefore, DoD, GSA, and NASA are proposing to amend 48 CFR parts 22, and 52 as set forth below:
        1. The authority citation for 48 CFR parts 22, and 52 continues to read as follows:

          Authority:
          40 U.S.C. 121(c); 10 U.S.C. chapter 137; and 51 U.S.C. 20113.

          PART 22—APPLICATION OF LABOR LAWS TO GOVERNMENT ACQUISITIONS

        2. Amend section 22.1901 by revising the heading and adding in alphabetical order the definition “Seasonal recreational services” to read as follows:

          22.1901
          Definitions.

            Seasonal recreational services, as used in this subpart, means services that include river running, hunting, fishing, horseback riding, camping, mountaineering activities, recreational ski services, and youth camps.

        3. Amend section 22.1903 by—
        a. In paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(C), removing the period and adding “; or” in its place; and
        b. Adding paragraph (b)(2)(iii).
        The addition reads as follows:

          22.1903
          Applicability.

          (b)  * * *
          (2)  * * *
          (iii) Seasonal recreational services or seasonal recreational equipment rental for the general public on Federal lands, except for lodging and food services associated with seasonal recreational services, in accordance with Executive Order 13838, Exemption from Executive Order 13658 for Recreational Services on Federal Lands (83 FR 25341, June 1, 2018), as implemented by the U.S. Department of Labor regulations at 29 CFR 10.4(g).

          PART 52—SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES

        4. Amend section 52.212-5 by—
        a. Revising the date of the clause;
        b. Removing from paragraph (c)(8) “(DEC 2015)” and adding “([DATE])” in its place;
        c. Removing from paragraph (e)(1)(xviii) “(DEC 2015)” and adding “([DATE])” in its place;
        d. Revising the date of Alternate II; and
        e. Removing from paragraph (e)(1)(ii)(P) of Alternate II “(DEC 2015)” and adding “([DATE])” in its place.
        The revisions read as follows:

          52.212-5
          Contract Terms and Conditions Required To Implement Statutes or Executive Orders—Commercial Items.

          Contract Terms and Conditions Required To Implement Statutes or Executive Orders—Commercial Items ([DATE])

              Alternate II ([DATE]).  * * *

        5. Amend section 52.213-4 by—
        a. Revising the date of the clause;
        b. Removing from paragraph (a)(2)(viii) “(AUG 2019)” and adding “([DATE])” in its place; and
        c. Removing from paragraph (b)(1)(ix) “(DEC 2015)” and adding “([DATE])” in its place;
        The revision reads as follows:

          52.213-4
          Terms and Conditions—Simplified Acquisitions (Other Than Commercial Items).

          Terms and Conditions—Simplified Acquisitions (Other Than Commercial Items) ([DATE])

        6. Amend section 52.222-55 by—
        a. Revising the date of the clause;

        b. Adding to paragraph (a), in alphabetical order, the definition “Seasonal recreational services”;
        c. In paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(A), removing the period at the end of the sentence and adding “;” in its place;
        d. In paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(B), removing the period at the end of the sentence and adding “; and” in its place;
        e. In paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(C), removing the period at the end of the sentence and adding “; or” in its place; and
        f. Adding paragraph (c)(2)(iii).
        The revision and additions read as follows:

          52.222-55
          Minimum Wages Under Executive Order 13658.

          Minimum Wages Under Executive Order 13658 ([DATE])

          (a) Definitions. * * *
          “Seasonal recreational services”, as used in this clause, means services that include: river running, hunting, fishing, horseback riding, camping, mountaineering activities, recreational ski services, and youth camps.

          (c)(2)  * * *

          (iii) Seasonal recreational services or seasonal recreational equipment rental for the general public on Federal lands, except for lodging and food services associated with seasonal recreational services, in accordance with Executive Order 13838, Exemption from Executive Order 13658 for Recreational Services on Federal Lands (83 FR 25341, June 1, 2018), as implemented by the U.S. Department of Labor regulations at 29 CFR 10.4(g).

        7. Amend section 52.244-6 by—
        a. Revising the date of the clause; and
        b. Removing from paragraph (c)(1)(xv) “(DEC 2015)” and adding “([DATE])” in its place;
        The revision reads as follows:

          52.244-6
          Subcontracts for Commercial Items.

          Subcontracts for Commercial Items ([DATE])

      [FR Doc. 2019-22781 Filed 10-18-19; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 6820-EP-P


        DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
        Research and Special Programs Administration
        49 CFR Part 173
        [Docket No. RSPA-99-6223 (HM-213B)]
        RIN 2137-AD36
        Hazardous Materials: Safety Requirements for External Product Piping on Cargo Tanks Transporting Flammable Liquids

          AGENCY:
          Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), Department of Transportation (DOT).

          ACTION:
          Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); extension of comment period.

          SUMMARY:
          RSPA is extending until April 28, 2005, the period for interested persons to submit comments on the December 30, 2004 notice of proposed rulemaking In the December 30, 2004 NPRM, we proposed to amend the Hazardous Materials Regulations to prohibit flammable liquids from being transported in unprotected product piping on existing and newly manufactured DOT specification cargo tank motor vehicles. If adopted as proposed, this action will reduce fatalities and injuries that result from accidents involving unprotected product piping. This proposal was developed jointly with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.

          DATES:
          Submit comments by April 28, 2005. To the extent possible, we will consider comments received after this date in developing a final rule.

          ADDRESSES:
          You may submit comments identified by the docket number RSPA-99-6223 (HM-213B) by any of the following methods:
          • Federal eRulemaking Portal:
            http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
          • Web site:
            http://dms.dot.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments on the DOT electronic docket site.
          • Fax: 1-202-493-2251.
          • Mail: Docket Management System; U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-001.
          • Hand Delivery: To the Docket Management System; Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC between 9 am and 5 pm, Monday through Friday, except Federal Holidays.

            Instructions: You must include the agency name (Research and Special Programs Administration) and docket number (RSPA-1999-6223 (HM-213B)) or the Regulatory Identification Number (RIN 2137-AD36) for this notice at the beginning of your comments. You should submit two copies of your comments if you submit them by mail. If you wish to receive confirmation that RSPA received your comments, you must include a self-addressed stamped postcard. Note that all comments received will be posted without change to “http://dms.dot.gov”, including any personal information provided, and will be accessible to Internet users. Please see the Privacy Act section of this document.

            Docket: You may view the public docket through the Internet at http://dms.dot.gov or in person at the Docket Management System office at the above address.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
          Mr. Michael Stevens, Office of Hazardous Materials Standards, (202) 366-8553, Research and Special Programs Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590-0001.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

        I. Background
        On December 30, 2004, the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA, we) published a notice of proposed rulemaking (69 FR 78375) under Docket RSPA-99-6223 (HM-213B) to propose changes to the requirements in the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR parts 171-180) for the transportation of flammable liquids in unprotected product piping on cargo tank motor vehicles.
        The HMR, at § 173.33(e), prohibit the retention of certain liquid hazardous materials in the external product piping (wetlines) of a DOT specification cargo tank, unless the cargo tank motor vehicle (CTMV) is equipped with bottom damage protection devices. The current prohibition applies to liquid hazardous materials in Divisions 5.1 (oxidizer), 5.2 (organic peroxide), 6.1 (toxic), and Class 8 (corrosive to skin only), but does not apply to flammable liquids.
        Wetlines are product piping located beneath the cargo tank on MC 306, MC 307, DOT 406, and DOT 407 CTMVs that remain filled with product after loading or unloading. Wetlines on a five-compartment CTMV carrying gasoline typically contain 30-50 gallons of gasoline. If another vehicle strikes the side of a CTMV, the impact likely will fracture unprotected wetlines. In such collisions, the other vehicle is often wedged under the CTMV. With the driver and passenger(s) trapped in the vehicle, the fractured wetlines may release their entire contents onto the other vehicle. If ignited, fire will rapidly engulf the vehicle. When ignited, a gasoline spill of 50 gallons will create a fire over an area of up to 5000 square feet, dooming those trapped in a vehicle at the site of the release and fire. If it is not extinguished immediately, the fire could result in significant loss of life or damage to property or the environment.
        The December 30, 2004 NPRM proposed to prohibit the carriage of flammable liquids in wetlines, unless the cargo tank motor vehicle conforms to the accident damage protection requirements of § 178.337-10 or the bottom damage protection requirements of § 178.345-8(b)(1), as appropriate. We proposed a quantity limit of one liter or less in each pipe after it is drained. The NPRM included an exception from the proposed requirements for truck-mounted DOT specification CTMVs. The NPRM proposed to make the changes effective two years after the effective date of a final rule and to permit CTMV operators five years to phase in requirements applicable to existing CTMVs. The comment period for the proposed rule was to end on February 28, 2005.
        The American Trucking Associations (ATA) and its affiliate the National Tank Truck Carriers, Inc. (NTTC), requested an additional 180 days in which to submit comments to the NPRM. ATA stated that an extension is necessary in order to accurately measure the proposal's full impact on the industry. NTTC asserted that a number of assumptions made in the NPRM and regulatory evaluation are wrong and that an extension is necessary in order to solicit and submit correct data from their industry. The Petroleum Marketers Association of America (PMAA) and the American Petroleum Institute (API) also requested an additional 180 days in which to submit comments to the NPRM. PMAA expressed concerns about the costs and available technology as a result of retrofitting existing CTMVs. API's extension request is identical to ATA's.

        Because it appears that an extension of the comment period to allow additional time for commenters to address the proposals in the NPRM would be beneficial, we are allowing an additional 60 days for submission of comments, which should be sufficient to accommodate commenters' need for additional time. We do not agree that an extension of 180 days is in the public interest. Accordingly, the closing date of the comment period is extended to April 28, 2005.
        II. Regulatory Notice
        Privacy Act

        Anyone is able to search the electronic form of all comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the comment, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). You may review DOT's complete Privacy Act Statement in the Federal Register published on April 11, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 70; Pages 19477-78) or you may visit http://dms.dot.gov.

          Issued in Washington, DC, on February 4, 2005 under the authority delegated in 49 CFR part 106.
          Robert A. McGuire,
          Associate Administrator for Hazardous Materials Safety.

      [FR Doc. 05-2561 Filed 2-9-05; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 4910-60-P


        DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
        Coast Guard
        33 CFR Part 165
        [Docket Number USCG-2021-0497]
        RIN 1625-AA00
        Safety Zone; Potomac River, Prince William County, VA

          AGENCY:
          Coast Guard, DHS.

          ACTION:
          Notice of proposed rulemaking.

          SUMMARY:
          The Coast Guard is proposing to establish a temporary safety zone for certain waters of the Potomac River. This action is necessary to provide for the safety of life on these navigable waters near Cherry Hill, in Prince William County, VA, during a fireworks display on September 18, 2021 (with alternate date of September 19, 2021). This proposed rulemaking would prohibit persons and vessels from being in the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region or a designated representative. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.

          DATES:
          Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before August 31, 2021.

          ADDRESSES:

          You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2021-0497 using the Federal Decision Making Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. See the “Public Participation and Request for Comments” portion of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for further instructions on submitting comments.

          FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

          If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email Mr. Ron Houck, Sector Maryland-National Capital Region Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 410-576-2674, email D05-DG-SectorMD-NCR-MarineEvents@uscg.mil.

        SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
        I. Table of Abbreviations

          CFR Code of Federal Regulations
          COTP Captain of the Port
          DHS Department of Homeland Security
          FR Federal Register
          NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
          § Section
          U.S.C. United States Code

        II. Background, Purpose, and Legal Basis
        On June 16, 2021, Tim's Rivershore Restaurant and Crabhouse of Dumfries, VA, notified the Coast Guard that it will be conducting a fireworks display from 9:30 p.m. to 10 p.m. on September 18, 2021, to commemorate the permanent closing of the restaurant after operating for many years. Details of the fireworks event were provided to the Coast Guard on August 5, 2021. The fireworks are to be launched from a barge in the Potomac River in approximate position latitude 38°34′07.97″ N, longitude 077°15′37.39″ W, located near Cherry Hill, in Prince William County, VA. In the event of inclement weather, the fireworks display will be scheduled for September 19, 2021. The COTP Maryland-National Capital Region has determined that potential hazards associated with the fireworks to be used in this display would be a safety concern for anyone within 500 feet of the barge.
        The Coast Guard is requesting that interested parties provide comments within a shortened comment period of 15 days instead of the typical 30 days for this notice of proposed rulemaking. The Coast Guard believes the 15-day comment period still provides for a reasonable amount of time for interested parties to review the proposal and provide informed comments on it while also ensuring that the Coast Guard has time to review and respond to any significant comments and have a final rule in effect in time for the scheduled event.
        The Coast Guard is proposing this rulemaking under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231).
        III. Discussion of Proposed Rule
        The COTP is proposing to establish a temporary safety zone from 8:30 p.m. on September 18, 2021, to 11 p.m. on September 19, 2021. The safety zone would be enforced from 8:30 p.m. to 11 p.m. on September 18, 2021, or, if necessary due to inclement weather on September 18, 2021, from 8:30 p.m. to 11 p.m. on September 19, 2021. The safety zone would cover all navigable waters of the Potomac River within 500 feet of the fireworks barge in approximate position latitude 38°34′07.97″ N, longitude 077°15′37.39″ W, located near Cherry Hill, in Prince William County, VA. The size of the zone and duration of the regulation are intended to ensure the safety of vessels and these navigable waters before, during, and after the fireworks display.
        No vessel or person would be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.
        IV. Regulatory Analyses
        We developed this proposed 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. This NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
        This regulatory action determination is based on the size, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone, which would impact small designated area of the Potomac River for a total no more than 2.5 total enforcement-hours during the evening when vessel traffic is normally low. This portion of the waterway supports mainly recreational vessel traffic, which at its peak, occurs during the summer season. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Local Notices to Mariners and a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone.
        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 proposed rule would 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 IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.

        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 rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email 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 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 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 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 proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please call or email 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 would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
        F. Environment

        We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination 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 involves a safety zone lasting 2.5 total enforcement hours that would prohibit entry within a portion of the Potomac River. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the discovery of a significant environmental impact from this proposed rule.
        G. Protest Activities

        The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to call or email 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.
        V. Public Participation and Request for Comments
        We view 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-2021-0497 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 you cannot submit your material by using https://www.regulations.gov, call or email the person in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this proposed rule 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. 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 to the docket 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 165
          Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

        For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is proposing to amend 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:
           46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.2.

        2. Add § 165.T05-0497 to read as follows:

          § 165.T05-0497
           Safety Zone; Potomac River, Prince William County, VA.
          (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All navigable waters of the Potomac River, within 500 feet of the fireworks barge in approximate position latitude 38°34′07.97″ N, longitude 077°15′37.39″ W, located near Cherry Hill, in Prince William County, VA. These coordinates are based on datum NAD 83.
          (b) Definitions. As used in this section—

            Captain of the Port (COTP) means the Commander, U.S. Coast Guard Sector Maryland-National Capital Region.

            Designated representative means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel and a Federal, State, and local officer designated by or assisting the Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region (COTP) in the enforcement of the safety zone.
          (c) Regulations. (1) Under the general safety zone regulations in subpart C of this part, you may not enter the safety zone described in paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.
          (2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's representative by telephone at 410-576-2693 or on Marine Band Radio VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). Those in the safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.
          (d) Enforcement officials. The U.S. Coast Guard may be assisted in the patrol and enforcement of the safety zone by Federal, State, and local agencies.
          (e) Enforcement period. This section will be enforced from 8:30 p.m. to 11 p.m. on September 18, 2021. If necessary due to inclement weather on September 18, 2021, it will be enforced from 8:30 p.m. to 11 p.m. on September 19, 2021.

          Dated: August 10, 2021.
          David E. O'Connell,
          Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Maryland-National Capital Region.

      [FR Doc. 2021-17441 Filed 8-13-21; 8:45 am]
      BILLING CODE 9110-04-P