Approval of Implementation Plans of Michigan: Clean Air Interstate Rule, 41648-41649 [E9-19467]

Download as PDF 41648 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 18, 2009 / Proposed Rules the expansion of escort vessel requirements in the western region of the Strait of Juan de Fuca, and asked for the response to take into account all relevant studies conducted since 1995. We have been unable to locate any documentation of such a petition, but will entertain a new petition submitted under 33 CFR 1.05–20. Petitions should be addressed to the Executive Secretary, Marine Safety and Security Council (CG–0943), U.S. Coast Guard, 2100 Second St., SW., Stop 7121, Washington, DC 20593–7121. One comment from the Makah Tribal Council, an Indian Tribe, requested government-to-government consultation with the Coast Guard prior to withdrawal. That consultation took place on April 23, 2009, and is documented as Document ID USCG– 2006–23556–0050.1 in the docket for this rulemaking. One comment expressed support for our proposed withdrawal. cprice-sewell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with PROPOSALS PWSA Assessments Under PWSA, the principal Coast Guard tool for assessing and controlling risks in local waterways is the Ports and Waterways Safety Assessment (PAWSA). Since 1998, the Coast Guard has conducted almost 40 PAWSAs for waterways around the country, and in a typical year there is funding for three additional PAWSAs, with priority given to waterways likely to be at greatest risk. PAWSAs employ a uniform methodology that was developed by academic experts and refined through four years of workshops involving stakeholders from industry, port authorities, and the environmental community among others. The goal, throughout, was to develop a process that could evaluate risk and work toward long term solutions, tailored to local circumstances, that is both cost effective and meets the needs of waterway users and stakeholders. The PAWSA methodology provides a formal structure for identifying risk factors and evaluating potential mitigation measures through expert inputs. Each PAWSA is conducted in a public workshop setting that brings together local waterway users, environmentalists, public safety figures, economic experts, and other local stakeholders. The methodology supplies a weighting tool to take into account the relative expertise of each workshop participant. During the workshop, participants discuss and assign numerical ratings to the local waterway’s safety risks in the following areas: • Quality of local vessels and crews; VerDate Nov<24>2008 14:36 Aug 17, 2009 Jkt 217001 • Number of vessels and their interaction with each other; • Winds, currents, and weather; • Physical properties affecting vessel maneuverability; • Likely immediate impacts of a waterway accident, such as a collision or hazardous material spill; and • Possible long term vessel traffic, economic, or environmental consequences of a waterway accident. Security risks are not included in the PAWSA risk analysis because they are analyzed separately by the Coast Guard through port vulnerability and security assessments. PAWSA workshop participants also discuss and assign numerical ratings to navigational systems, emergency response capabilities, and other measures currently in place, or that could be adopted, to control each risk. PAWSA computer software uses input from the workshop participants to generate risk assessments in several categories, and to assess the effectiveness of current or potential control measures. Workshop participants then review the computergenerated results, and can revise their input if they feel their initial ratings produced a false picture of local conditions. You can get more information about PAWSAs, including contact information for the Coast Guard’s Office of Waterways Management PAWSA Project Officer, at https://www.navcen. uscg.gov/mwv/projects/pawsa/ PAWSA_home.htm, or read reports on any of the PAWSAs conducted to date at https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/mwv/ projects/pawsa/PAWSA_ FinalReports.htm. If you have comments or suggestions about PAWSAs generally, contact the Project Officer. If you think a specific waterway should be the focus of a future PAWSA, contact the Project Officer, or contact the relevant Coast Guard sector commander. In your recommendation, you should address the bulleted local waterway safety risks cited earlier in this discussion, as fully and specifically as possible. A list of Coast Guard sectors, as part of a comprehensive list of Coast Guard units, can be found at https://www.uscg.mil/ top/units/. Withdrawal The Coast Guard withdraws this rulemaking, which concerns the extension, to other U.S. waters and to other types of vessels, of those escort vessel requirements that apply to single hulled oil tankers in Prince William Sound, Alaska, and Puget Sound, Washington. We have concluded that a rulemaking of national scope under the PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 authority of OPA 90 is neither necessary nor advisable given the availability of PWSA assessments of the needs, in specific local waters, for escort vessels or other protective measures. Authority We issue this notice of withdrawal under the authority of the Ports and Waterways Safety Act, 33 U.S.C. 1221 et seq., and section 4116(c) of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, Public Law 101– 380. Dated: August 11, 2009. F. J. Sturm, Acting Director, Commercial Regulations and Standards, U.S. Coast Guard. [FR Doc. E9–19705 Filed 8–17–09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–15–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R05–OAR–2009–0294; FRL–8944–8] Approval of Implementation Plans of Michigan: Clean Air Interstate Rule AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Michigan abbreviated State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted on July 16, 2007 and on June 10, 2009. Together, the revisions address the requirements for an abbreviated Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) SIP. EPA is also providing notice that the December 20, 2007 conditional approval of the July 16, 2007 submittal automatically converted to a disapproval. DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 17, 2009. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– OAR–2009–0294, by one of the following methods: 1. https://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 2. E-mail: mooney.john@epa.gov. 3. Fax: (312) 692–2551. 4. Mail: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 5. Hand Delivery: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Deliveries are only E:\FR\FM\18AUP1.SGM 18AUP1 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 18, 2009 / Proposed Rules accepted during the regional office normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The regional office official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Final Rules section of this Federal Register for detailed instructions on how to submit comments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Douglas Aburano, Environmental Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353–6960, aburano.douglas@epa.gov. In the Final Rules section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving the State’s SIP submittal as a direct final rule without prior proposal because EPA views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this rule, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period; therefore, any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in the Final Rules section of this Federal Register. cprice-sewell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with PROPOSALS SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Dated: August 4, 2009. Bharat Mathur, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. [FR Doc. E9–19467 Filed 8–17–09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P VerDate Nov<24>2008 14:36 Aug 17, 2009 Jkt 217001 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 17 [Docket No. FWS–R2–ES–2008–0131; MO 9221050083–B2] Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Partial 90-Day Finding on a Petition To List 206 Species in the Midwest and Western United States as Threatened or Endangered with Critical Habitat AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition finding. SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 90-day finding on 38 species from a petition to list 206 species in the mountain-prairie region of the United States as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). For 9 of the 38 species, we find that the petition did not present substantial information indicating that listing may be warranted. For 29 of the 38 species, we find that the petition does present substantial scientific or commercial information indicating that listing may be warranted. Therefore, with the publication of this notice, we are initiating a status review of the 29 species to determine if listing is warranted. To ensure that the review is comprehensive, we are soliciting scientific and commercial information regarding these 29 species. DATES: To allow us adequate time to conduct a status review, we request that we receive information on or before October 19, 2009. ADDRESSES: You may submit information by one of the following methods: • Federal rulemaking Portal: https:// www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments to Docket no. FWS–R2–ES–2008–0131. • U.S. Mail or hand delivery: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS–R6– ES–2008–0131, Division of Policy and Directives Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 222, Arlington, VA 22203. We will post all information received on https://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us (see the Information Solicited section below for more information). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ann Carlson, Listing Coordinator, MountainPrairie Regional Ecological Services PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 41649 Office (see ADDRESSES); telephone 303– 236–4264. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), please call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 800–877–8339. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Information Solicited When we make a finding that a petition presents substantial information indicating that a species may be warranted, we are required to promptly commence a review of the status of the species. To ensure that the status review is complete and based on the best available scientific and commercial information, we are soliciting information concerning the status of the 29 species for which we found that the petition provides substantial information that listing may be warranted. We request information from the public, other concerned governmental agencies, Tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested parties concerning the status of the species. We are seeking information regarding the species’ historical and current status and distribution, their biology and ecology, ongoing conservation measures for the species and their habitats, and threats to the species or their habitats. Please note that comments merely stating support or opposition to the action under consideration without providing supporting information, although noted, will not be considered in making a determination, as section 4(b)(1)(A) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533 (b)(1)(A)) directs that determinations as to whether any species is a threatened or endangered species must be made ‘‘solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available.’’ At the conclusion of the status review, we will issue a 12-month finding on the petition, as provided in section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 U.S.C. 1533(b)(3)(B)). You may submit your information concerning this 90-day finding or the 29 species by one of the methods listed in the ADDRESSES section. We will not consider submissions sent by e-mail or fax or to an address not listed in the ADDRESSES section. If you submit information via https:// www.regulations.gov, your entire submission—including any personal identifying information—will be posted on the website. If your submission is made via a hardcopy that includes personal identifying information, you may request at the top of your document that we withhold this information from public review. However, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. E:\FR\FM\18AUP1.SGM 18AUP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 158 (Tuesday, August 18, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 41648-41649]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-19467]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2009-0294; FRL-8944-8]


Approval of Implementation Plans of Michigan: Clean Air 
Interstate Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the Michigan 
abbreviated State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted on July 16, 2007 
and on June 10, 2009. Together, the revisions address the requirements 
for an abbreviated Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) SIP. EPA is also 
providing notice that the December 20, 2007 conditional approval of the 
July 16, 2007 submittal automatically converted to a disapproval.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 17, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2009-0294, by one of the following methods:
    1. https://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
    2. E-mail: mooney.john@epa.gov.
    3. Fax: (312) 692-2551.
    4. Mail: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air 
Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West 
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    5. Hand Delivery: John M. Mooney, Chief, Criteria Pollutant 
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Deliveries 
are only

[[Page 41649]]

accepted during the regional office normal hours of operation, and 
special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed 
information. The regional office official hours of business are Monday 
through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
    Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Final 
Rules section of this Federal Register for detailed instructions on how 
to submit comments.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Douglas Aburano, Environmental 
Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-6960, aburano.douglas@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Final Rules section of this Federal 
Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP submittal as a direct final 
rule without prior proposal because EPA views this as a 
noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A 
detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final 
rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this rule, no 
further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the 
direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received 
will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed 
rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period; therefore, any 
parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this 
time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, 
paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed 
from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions 
of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. For 
additional information, see the direct final rule which is located in 
the Final Rules section of this Federal Register.

    Dated: August 4, 2009.
Bharat Mathur,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. E9-19467 Filed 8-17-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.