[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 198 (Friday, October 12, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 51629-51636]
[FR Doc No: 2018-22174]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0578; FRL-9985-26-Region 3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; Attainment Plan for the Warren County, Pennsylvania
Nonattainment Area for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide Primary National Ambient
Air Quality Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a state
implementation plan (SIP) revision, submitted by the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania through the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection (PADEP), to EPA on September 29, 2017, for the purpose of
demonstrating attainment of the 2010 1-hour sulfur dioxide
(SO2) primary national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS)
in the Warren County, Pennsylvania SO2 nonattainment area
(hereafter referred to as the ``Warren Area'' or ``Area''). The Warren
Area is comprised of a portion of Warren County (Conewango Township,
Glade Township, Pleasant Township, and the City of Warren) in
Pennsylvania surrounding the United Refining Company (hereafter
referred to as ``United Refining''). The SIP submission is an
attainment plan which includes the base year emissions inventory, an
analysis of the reasonably available control technology (RACT) and
reasonably available control measure (RACM) requirements, enforceable
emission limitations and other control measures, a reasonable further
progress (RFP) plan, a modeling demonstration of SO2
attainment, contingency measures, and a nonattainment new source review
(NNSR) program for the Warren Area. As part of approving the attainment
plan, EPA is also approving into the Pennsylvania SIP new
SO2 emission limits and associated compliance parameters for
United Refining. EPA is approving Pennsylvania's attainment plan and
concludes that the Warren Area will attain the 2010 1-hour primary
SO2 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date and that the
plan meets all applicable requirements under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: This final rule is effective on November 13, 2018.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0578. All documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business
information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available through
https://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional availability
information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Megan Goold,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Background and Purpose
II. Response to Comments
III. Final Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background and Purpose

    On June 2, 2010, the EPA Administrator signed a final rule
establishing a new SO2 primary NAAQS as a 1-hour standard of
75 parts per billion (ppb), based on a 3-year average of the annual
99th percentile of daily maximum 1-hour average concentrations. See 75
FR 35520 (June 22, 2010), codified at 40 CFR 50.17. This action also
revoked the existing 1971 primary annual and 24-hour standards, subject
to certain conditions.\1\ EPA established the NAAQS based on
significant evidence and numerous health studies demonstrating that
serious health effects are associated with short-term exposures to
SO2 emissions ranging from 5 minutes to 24 hours with an
array of adverse respiratory effects including narrowing of the airways
which can cause difficulty breathing (bronchoconstriction) and
increased asthma symptoms. For more information regarding the health
impacts of SO2, please refer to the June 22, 2010 final
rulemaking. See 75 FR 35520. Following promulgation of a new or revised
NAAQS, EPA is required by the CAA to designate areas throughout the
United States as attaining or not attaining the NAAQS; this designation
process is described in section 107(d)(1)-(2) of the CAA. On August 5,
2013, EPA promulgated initial air quality designations for 29 areas for
the 2010 SO2 NAAQS (78 FR 47191), which became effective on
October 4, 2013, based on violating air quality monitoring data for
calendar years 2009-2011, where there were sufficient data to support a
nonattainment designation.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA's June 22, 2010, final action revoked the two 1971
primary 24-hour standard of 140 ppb and the annual standard of 30
ppb because they were determined not to add additional public health
protection given a 1-hour standard at 75 ppb. See 75 FR 35520.
However, the secondary 3-hour SO2 standard was retained.
Currently, the 24-hour and annual standards are only revoked for
certain of those areas the EPA has already designated for the 2010
1-hour SO2 NAAQS. See 40 CFR 50.4(e).
    \2\ EPA is continuing its designation efforts for the 2010
SO2 NAAQS. Pursuant to a court-order entered on March 2,
2015, by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California, EPA must complete the remaining designations for the
rest of the country on a schedule that contains three specific
deadlines. Sierra Club, et al. v. Environmental Protection Agency,
13-cv-03953-SI (2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Effective on October 4, 2013, the Warren Area was designated as
nonattainment for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS for an area that
encompasses the primary SO2 emitting source, United
Refining, and the nearby SO2 monitor (Air Quality Site ID:
42-123-0004). The final designation triggered a requirement for
Pennsylvania to submit a SIP revision with an attainment plan for how
the Area would attain the 2010 SO2 NAAQS as expeditiously as
practicable, but no later than October 4, 2018, in accordance with CAA
section 192(a).
    For a number of areas, including the Warren Area, EPA published a
notice on March 18, 2016, that Pennsylvania and other pertinent states
had failed to submit the required SO2 attainment plan

by this submittal deadline. See 81 FR 14736. This finding initiated a
deadline under CAA section 179(a) for the potential imposition of new
source review and highway funding sanctions. However, pursuant to
Pennsylvania's submittal of September 29, 2017, and EPA's subsequent
letter dated October 5, 2017 to Pennsylvania, finding the submittal
complete and noting the stopping of the sanctions deadline, these
sanctions under section 179(a) will not be imposed as a consequence of
Pennsylvania having missed the SIP submission deadline. Additionally,
under CAA section 110(c), the March 18, 2016 finding triggered a
requirement that EPA promulgate a Federal implementation plan (FIP)
within two years of the effective date of the finding unless, by that
time, the State has made the necessary complete submittal and EPA has
approved the submittal as meeting applicable requirements. This FIP
obligation will not apply once this SIP approval action is finalized.
    Attainment plans for SO2 must meet the applicable
requirements of the CAA, and specifically CAA sections 110, 172, 191,
and 192. The required components of an attainment plan submittal are
listed in section 172(c) of Title I, part D of the CAA, and in EPA's
implementing regulations at 40 CFR part 51. On April 23, 2014, EPA
issued recommended guidance (hereafter 2014 SO2
Nonattainment Guidance) for how state submissions could address the
statutory requirements for SO2 attainment plans.\3\ In this
guidance, EPA described the statutory requirements for an attainment
plan, which include: An accurate base year emissions inventory of
current emissions for all sources of SO2 within the
nonattainment area (172(c)(3)); An attainment demonstration that
includes a modeling analysis showing that the enforceable emissions
limitations and other control measures taken by the State will provide
for expeditious attainment of the NAAQS (172(c)); demonstration of RFP
(172(c)(2)); implementation of RACM, including RACT (172(c)(1)); NNSR
requirements (172(c)(5)); and adequate contingency measures for the
affected area (172(c)(9)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See ``Guidance for 1-Hour SO2 Nonattainment Area
SIP Submissions'' (April 23, 2014), available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-06/documents/20140423guidance_nonattainment_sip.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 22, 2018 (83 FR 12516), EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania proposing
approval of the Warren area attainment plan. In accordance with section
172(c) of the CAA, the Pennsylvania attainment plan for the Warren Area
includes: (1) An emissions inventory for SO2 for the plan's
base year (2011); and (2) an attainment demonstration. The attainment
demonstration includes the following: Analyses that locate, identify,
and quantify sources of emissions contributing to violations of the
2010 SO2 NAAQS; a determination that the control strategy
for the primary SO2 source within the nonattainment areas
constitutes RACM/RACT; a dispersion modeling analysis of an emissions
control strategy for the primary SO2 source (United
Refining), which also accounts for smaller sources within the Area in
the background concentration, showing attainment of the SO2
NAAQS by the October 4, 2018 attainment date; requirements for RFP
toward attaining the SO2 NAAQS in the Area; contingency
measures; the assertion that Pennsylvania's existing SIP-approved NNSR
program meets the applicable requirements for SO2; and the
request that emission limitations and compliance parameters for United
Refining be incorporated into the SIP. Comments on EPA's proposed
rulemaking were due on or before April 23, 2018.
    EPA received 28 anonymous comments that were not germane to this
rulemaking action and will not be addressed here. EPA received specific
comments on this rulemaking action on nine topics. All comments are
available in the docket for this final rulemaking action. EPA's summary
of the comments and EPA's responses are provided below. For a
comprehensive discussion of Pennsylvania's SIP submittal and EPA's
analysis and rationale for approval of the State's submittal and
attainment demonstration for this area, please refer to EPA's March 22,
2017 NPRM. The remainder of this action contains EPA's response to
public comments and provides EPA's final approval of Pennsylvania's
attainment plan for the Warren Area.

II. Response to Comments

    A summary of the comments received and EPA's responses are provided
in this Section of this rulemaking action. The Sierra Club submitted a
comment letter dated April 23, 2018, which contained five substantive
comments summarized in comments one through five. Comments labeled six
through nine were received from anonymous commenters and a citizen of
Warren County, Pennsylvania. Where comments contained similar topics,
they were grouped accordingly. To review the full set of comments
received, refer to the Docket for this rulemaking action.
    Comment 1: The commenter asserts that the emission limits for
United Refining would allow emissions above levels reflected in both
the 2018 projected emissions inventory and the 2011 baseline emissions
inventory. The commenter states that the Attainment Plan for the Warren
Area should not be approved because it fails to provide an air quality
modeling analysis that demonstrates that the emission limits in the
plan will suffice to provide for timely attainment of the 2010
SO2 NAAQS, including ``necessary enforceable limits''
sufficient to ensure that the standard is attained and maintained. The
commenter states that the emission limits that EPA proposes to approve
would allow emissions higher than those that occurred in 2011 when the
monitored design value for Warren County was 112 ppb.
    Response 1: EPA disagrees that the Warren Area Attainment Plan
should not be approved because the emission limits and air quality
modeling analysis would not ensure that the 2010 SO2 NAAQS
is attained and maintained. As described in EPA's NPRM, the hourly
emission limits developed for United Refining have been modeled to show
attainment with the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. As described in appendix
W to 40 CFR part 51 (hereafter appendix W) and the EPA's 2014
SO2 Nonattainment Guidance, the attainment plan should
demonstrate through the use of air quality dispersion modeling, using
allowable hourly emissions, that the area will attain the standard by
its attainment date. The modeling analysis, which EPA found reasonable
and in accordance with EPA guidance as discussed in the NPRM in detail,
provides for attainment considering the worst-case scenario of both the
meteorology and the maximum allowable emissions. The modeling
demonstration provided by Pennsylvania followed the recommendations
outlined in appendix W and the 2014 SO2 Nonattainment
Guidance.
    In addition, under CAA Section 172(c)(3) and as described in EPA's
NPRM, states are required to submit a comprehensive, accurate, current
accounting of actual emissions from all sources (point, nonpoint,
nonroad, and onroad) of the relevant pollutant or pollutants in the
nonattainment area. In this case, the base year inventory is
representative of actual emissions for 2011, and the 2018 projected
inventory is a projection based off 2011 base year emissions and
business projections. As the commenter correctly noted, the emission
limits for United Refining (which are hourly limits expressed in

pounds per hour (lbs/hr)) can be converted to an annual value, which
equates to approximately 1,274 tons per year (tpy), assuming 8,760
hours of operation. This value is considered the maximum allowable
emissions on an annual time frame. As the commenter correctly asserts,
the maximum allowable annual emissions for 2018 are greater than the
2011 base year emissions (992 tpy) and the emissions in the 2018
projected inventory (510 tpy); however, the modeled hourly emission
limits at United Refining are more stringent than the hourly emission
limits that were in place in the 2011 base year. In 2011, a facility-
wide SO2 emissions cap of 902.6 lbs/hr was in place at
United Refining, as well as unit-specific hourly SO2
emission limits as specified in the PADEP's SO2 Plan
Approval for United Refining.\4\ In the Warren Attainment Plan, PADEP
has adopted new, more stringent unit-specific hourly emission limits
that add up to approximately 291 lbs/hr (approximately one third of the
previous hourly facility-wide limit). The hourly emission limit for
United Refining is in accordance with EPA's recommendation that
emission limits for attaining the 1-hour 2010 SO2 NAAQS
should limit emissions for each hour (and not on an annual basis).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See PADEP's SO2 Plan Approval for United
Refining, 2001. Available at https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-06/documents/united_refining.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the calculated annual maximum 2018 emissions using the hourly
limit exceed the 2011 inventory on an annual basis and exceed the
projected 2018 emissions inventory, our approval of the Warren Area
attainment plan, and the modeling demonstration, is based on modeling
using hourly limits (not annual values) in accordance with CAA
requirements and EPA guidance. Furthermore, as explained in the NPRM
and the Modeling Technical Support Document (TSD), which can be found
under Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0578 and at www.regulations.gov,
Pennsylvania's modeling demonstration was conducted in accordance with
CAA requirements and thus, is approvable under CAA Section 172. The
attainment modeling demonstrates that the newly adopted hourly emission
limit for United Refining provides for protection of the 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS.
    It is important to note that attainment modeling demonstrations are
based on the worst-case emission scenarios, and therefore, demonstrate
that if United Refining emitted at their newly established hourly
emission limit 8,760 hours per year, they would still reach attainment.
Even though the Warren Area design value in 2011 was 94 ppb,\5\ and the
allowable annual emissions in 2018 are greater than the 2011 base year
emissions, that does not mean a violation of the NAAQS will occur in
2018 (as the commenter erroneously asserts). In 2011, United Refining
was allowed to emit up to 906.2 lbs/hr, and while they obviously did
not do this every hour of the year (since their 2011 annual emissions
were 992 tons which is less than the allowable 3,951 tons),\6\ they
could have emitted that much during a short time frame which would have
contributed to a design value greater than 75 ppb (as design values are
based on a 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of daily
maximum 1-hour average concentrations). The commenter asserts that the
design value was 112 ppb in 2011 in Warren County, which the commenter
also assumes is directly correlated to the annual SO2
emissions; neither the design value nor this assumption is accurate. It
is incorrect to assume that there is a direct relationship between
whether a total annual allowable emissions inventory is higher than
base year and projected year actual emissions inventories and whether
an area will attain the 1-hour NAAQS based on modeling of allowable
hourly emission limits. In fact, in assessing whether an emission limit
will provide for attainment of the 1-hour NAAQS, the total annual
allowable emissions under the limit is not a factor in the modeling
analysis, as it is irrelevant to determining whether the 3-year average
of the 99th percentile of daily maximum 1-hour average concentrations
will meet the NAAQS. Ambient concentrations calculated at hourly
intervals are correlated with hourly emissions and not annual
emissions; and the hourly emission limits set for United Refining in
the Consent Order and Agreement (COA) were modeled to show attainment
of the SO2 NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ EPA data shows the 99th percentile daily maximum in 2011 for
the Warren Area was 94 ppb, and the 2011 3-year design value was 105
ppb. EPA does not know how the commenter calculated a 112 ppb design
value for 2011 for the Warren Area. https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values#report.
    \6\ Annual allowable emissions for United Refining assuming
906.2 lbs/hr operating 8760 hours per year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, as noted in EPA's NPRM and as required in the COA,
United Refining switched from high sulfur content (2.8 percent (%)
sulfur) fuel oil to lower sulfur content fuel oil (0.5%) in 11
combustion units and heaters, which decreased SO2 emissions.
As specified in the COA, United Refining increased its use of a flue
gas desulfurization additive (De-Sox) for the fluid catalytic cracking
(FCC) unit, which also decreased SO2 emissions. These
enforceable control measures and the enforceable emission limits, along
with compliance parameters, are specified in the COA with United
Refining which Pennsylvania requested us to incorporate into the SIP.
The SO2 limits in the COA and in United Refining's permit
support the modeling demonstration which shows the Warren Area
attaining the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. That is, regardless of how the
annual total allowable emissions under Pennsylvania's SIP (assuming
8,760 hours per year of operation at that limit) compare to
Pennsylvania's estimate of 2011 and 2018 emissions for this facility,
the SIP is requiring control measures that will reduce emissions, and
Pennsylvania has demonstrated that the emission limitations that
produce these emission reductions will improve air quality sufficiently
to attain the standard.
    Comment 2: The commenter claims that EPA has relied on a modeled
attainment analysis that barely attains the standard, and does so with
the use of an incorrect background concentration, which was calculated
contrary to EPA's Modeling Guidance. The commenter asserts that relying
on the average value from a single month of data is not representative
of background. The commenter asserts that even if the monthly data were
representative, the 99th percentile daily maximum value should have
been used as the background concentration (as opposed to the average
value). The commenter states that using the 99th percentile daily
maximum value of 6 ppb rather than the average value of 2.19 ppb
background used by PADEP, results in a modeled design value of 78.5
ppb.
    Response 2: EPA disagrees with the commenter's arguments, and has
determined that the 2.19 ppb background level used by PADEP
appropriately represents background concentrations in the Area. As
explained in the NPRM and Modeling TSD, Pennsylvania's proposed
background concentration used in its modeling demonstration is
reasonable and reflective of true background concentrations in the
Warren Area. EPA found in the NPRM and in the Modeling TSD, that the
background concentration used in the air-dispersion modeling analysis
for the Warren, Pennsylvania 1-hour SO2 nonattainment area
was reasonable and was determined in accordance with EPA's Appendix W--

Guideline on Air Quality Models. EPA believes section 8.3.2 (c) of
appendix W provides flexibility in determining the model background
concentration and allows for methods other than using a monitor design
value as long as the method is fully described and vetted with the
reviewing authorities and is judged to provide an appropriate
assessment of background concentrations. In this case, the availability
of monitored values during a time period of little to no operation of
the United Refinery provided a unique opportunity to develop a
background concentration. Since the nonattainment area has only one
primary SO2 source it was reasonable to assume monitor
concentrations within the nonattainment area during this time period
would be indicative of the Area's background concentration. This
background concentration was compared to other regional values for
areas with similar source distributions and shown to be comparable in
magnitude. While this approach is not specifically included in EPA's
list of possible examples in appendix W, it was fully vetted by the
proper reviewing authority as required by appendix W. The development
of this background concentration is more fully described in section 4.7
of United Refinery's February 2017 modeling protocol (see Appendix C-3
of Pennsylvania's SIP documentation) and it has been vetted and
approved by EPA in this rulemaking action.
    In addition, the commenter's assertion that the 99th percentile
value of the monitored daily maximum concentrations during the United
Refinery's turnaround period should be used as background as opposed to
the average value is not supported by any data or reasoning. There are
no stipulations in appendix W that require background concentrations to
be based on the 99th percentile of concentrations. Background
concentrations must represent the ambient concentrations without the
source in question. As discussed in Appendix C-3 of Pennsylvania's
submittal, during the turnaround period, the United Refinery was mostly
off, however, certain maintenance activities occurred which produced
SO2 emissions. By taking the average of the daily maximum
values, impacts from SO2 emissions generated by the
maintenance activities (as detailed in Appendix C-3 of Pennsylvania's
submittal) would have been minimized and values would be more
reflective of true background concentrations in the area. As specified
in Appendix C-3 of Pennsylvania's submittal, use of other statistical
calculations such as the 99th percentile would include the discrete
periods where turnaround activity SO2 emissions were
impacting the Warren-Overlook ambient monitor. EPA continues to find
Pennsylvania's use of average concentrations (instead of the 99th
percentile) reasonable because it is within permissible discretion of
appendix W, not prohibited by 2014 SO2 Nonattainment
Guidance or appendix W, and because the 99th percentile was affected by
some minor operations of the United Refinery that occurred during the
shutdown.
    EPA has provided additional information supporting our initial
determination that the background value utilized in the Warren
attainment demonstration is reasonable in a supplemental TSD, which can
be found under Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-2017-0578 and at
www.regulations.gov. The supporting information provides an updated
comparison of the background concentration used in the Warren modeling
analysis to regional SO2 monitored values which shows that
the background concentration of 2.19 ppb used by Pennsylvania is
similar to monitored values in a nearby similar location to the Area
which supports the data used by Pennsylvania for background. The TSD
also includes a discussion of the overall downward SO2
emission trends across the United States, resulting from declining
consumption of coal as a fuel source by electricity generating plants
that are the primary sources of background SO2 emissions,
lending more support to the assertion that background concentrations
are falling and 2.19 ppb is a reasonable background for the Warren
Area. In addition to emission trends, the SO2 ambient
concentration trend in the Northeast (which includes Pennsylvania and
New York) mirrors the national trend showing an 84% reduction in
ambient SO2 concentrations from 2000-2017.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/sulfur-dioxide-trends#soreg.
Nationally, a 79% decrease in ambient monitor concentrations of
SO2 has been observed from 2000-2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA thus continues to find it reasonable for Pennsylvania to use a
background concentration that is based on monitored data from a period
when the refinery was shut down because the data used does not include
emissions from the primary source (as specified in appendix W), the
data are similar to data from nearby areas and based on SO2
emission trends we do not expect background concentrations to go up in
the future. In addition, 2017 monitored SO2 concentrations
do not show the Warren Area to be violating the 1-hour SO2
NAAQS.
    Comment 3: The commenter claims that the contingency measures
specified in the Warren Attainment Plan are inadequate because they are
not specific, do not take effect automatically, and count back-to-back
days of exceedances as a single day. Per the commenter, the NAAQS is
designed to prevent repeated days of high ambient SO2
concentrations and back-to-back days of exceedances would ``potentially
allow exceedances of the 99th-percentile evaluative criteria for the
NAAQS to be met long before any even theoretical remedial effects of
the contingency measure could accrue at all.'' The commenter states the
``measure'' is nothing more than requiring United Refining to issue a
report including unknown proposed operation changes. The commenter
states this lack of specificity is plainly inconsistent with CAA
requirements.
    Response 3: EPA disagrees with the commenter that the contingency
measures are inadequate. Section 172(c)(9) of the CAA defines
contingency measures as such measures in a SIP that are to be
implemented in the event that an area fails to make RFP, or fails to
attain the NAAQS, by the applicable attainment date. Contingency
measures are to become effective without further action by the State or
EPA, where the area has failed to (1) achieve RFP or, (2) attain the
NAAQS by the statutory attainment date for the affected area. These
control measures are to consist of other available control measures
that are not included in the control strategy for the attainment plan
SIP for the affected area.
    However, EPA has also explained that SO2 presents
special considerations.\8\ First, for some of the other criteria
pollutants, the analytical tools for quantifying the relationship
between reductions in precursor emissions and resulting air quality
improvements remains subject to significant uncertainties, in contrast
with procedures for directly-emitted pollutants such as SO2.
Second, emission estimates and attainment analyses for other criteria
pollutants can be strongly influenced by overly optimistic assumptions
about control

efficiency and rates of compliance for many small sources. This is not
the case for SO2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See SO2 Guideline Document, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Research Triangle Park, N.C. 27711, EPA-452/R-94-008, February 1994.
See also EPA's 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Guidance.
    See General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 at 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In contrast, the control efficiencies for SO2 control
measures are well understood and are far less prone to uncertainty.
Since SO2 control measures are by definition based on what
is directly and quantifiably necessary to attain the SO2
NAAQS, it would be unlikely for an area to implement the necessary
emission controls yet fail to attain the NAAQS. Therefore, for
SO2 programs, EPA has explained that ``contingency
measures'' can mean that the air agency has a comprehensive program to
identify sources of violations of the SO2 NAAQS and to
undertake an ``aggressive'' follow-up for compliance and enforcement,
including expedited procedures for establishing enforceable consent
agreements pending the adoption of the revised SIP. EPA believes that
this approach continues to be valid for the implementation of
contingency measures to address the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, and
consequently concludes that Pennsylvania's comprehensive enforcement
program, as discussed below, satisfies the contingency measure
requirement. This approach to contingency measures for SO2
does not preclude an air agency from requiring additional measures that
are enforceable and appropriate for a particular source category if the
State determines such supplementary measures are appropriate. As EPA
has stated in our reasonable interpretation of contingency measures for
areas coming into attainment with the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, in
order for EPA to be able to approve the SIP, the supplementary
contingency measures would need to be a fully adopted provision in the
SIP that becomes effective where the area has failed to meet RFP or
fails to attain the standard by the statutory attainment date. The
supplementary contingency measures proposed for the Warren Area are in
the COA we are incorporating into the Pennsylvania SIP and thus will be
fully approved provisions within the SIP.
    As noted in EPA's NPRM, EPA's 2014 SO2 Nonattainment
Guidance describes special features of SO2 planning that
influence the suitability of alternative means of addressing the
requirement in section 172(c)(9) for contingency measures including a
comprehensive enforcement program. Pennsylvania has a comprehensive
enforcement program as specified in Section 4(27) of the Pennsylvania
Air Pollution Control Act (APCA), 35 P.S. section 4004(27). Under this
program, PADEP is authorized to take any action it deems necessary or
proper for the effective enforcement of the Act and the rules and
regulations promulgated under the Act. Such actions include the
issuance of orders (for example, enforcement orders and orders to take
corrective action to address air pollution or the danger of air
pollution from a source) and the assessment of civil penalties.
Sections 9.1 and 10.1 of the APCA, 35 P.S. sections 4009.1 and 4010.1,
also expressly authorize PADEP to issue orders to aid in the
enforcement of the APCA and to assess civil penalties.
    Any person in violation of the APCA, rules and regulations, any
order of PADEP, or plan approval or operating permit conditions would
also be subject to criminal fines upon conviction under Section 9, 35
P.S. section 4009. Section 7.1 of the APCA, 35 P.S. section 4007.1,
prohibits PADEP from issuing plan approvals and operating permits for
any applicant, permittee, or a general partner, parent or subsidiary
corporation of the applicant or the permittee that is placed on PADEP's
Compliance Docket until the violations are corrected to the
satisfaction of PADEP.
    EPA concludes that Pennsylvania's enforcement program by itself
suffices to satisfy the contingency measure requirements. Therefore,
notwithstanding Sierra Club's concerns about the specificity and
triggering of the supplementary measures identified in the United
Refining COA, EPA believes that Pennsylvania's enforcement program,
which is enhanced by the supplementary provisions in the United
Refining COA, suffice to meet Section 172(c)(9) requirements as
interpreted in the 1992 General Preamble and the 2014 SO2
Nonattainment Guidance.
    Comment 4: The commenter asserts that EPA's proposed rulemaking
includes an improper reference to the Indiana Area in Part III. Section
A.
    Response 4: EPA agrees with the commenter that the term Indiana
Area was inadvertently included in Part III. Section A. of the NPRM.
The language should have read, ``Pennsylvania's attainment plan
appropriately considered SO2 emissions for the Warren
Area.''
    Comment 5: The commenter asserts that PADEP erroneously calculated
emissions of road and non-road sources of 1.380 and 0.337 tons,
respectively. They assert that the National Emissions Inventory
suggests those same emissions categories were closer to 4.28 and 0.781
tons, respectively. The commenter states that while the Warren
Nonattainment Area does not comprise the entirety of Warren County, it
does include the vast majority of the county, including the more
developed portions, rendering the extremely large emissions
discrepancies to be quite concerning.
    Response 5: EPA disagrees with the commenter. The methodologies
used to determine the onroad and nonroad emissions were reviewed and
deemed reasonable by EPA. The nonroad emissions are calculated for the
nonattainment area (NAA) by using proportional population for the four
municipalities that comprise the NAA. Using the 2010 census,
approximately 43.18 percent of the population of Warren County lives
within the Warren NAA, therefore the total nonroad emissions for the
county (0.781 tpy) were multiplied by the percent of the population
(43.18%) to get nonroad emissions for the NAA (0.337 tpy). The onroad
emissions were calculated using the EPA's MOVES2014 emissions model.
The inputs used in the model account for vehicle activity data within
the four municipalities within the NAA. The onroad and nonroad
emissions contribute to 0.17% and 0.031%, respectively, of the total
emissions in the NAA. As stated in the NPRM, EPA reviewed the
methodologies for the development of the base year inventory and found
them to be reasonable.
    Comment 6: The commenter states that EPA's claim of evaluating
SO2 emissions in the Warren nonattainment area is not valid
because there are only two SO2 ambient air quality monitors
within the four municipalities of the Warren Area. The commenter
asserts that the ambient air quality data is not representative of the
entire nonattainment area or the most populated municipality, and that
additional monitor sites must be established in the populated areas.
The commenter states that the Warren Overlook monitor is 2.9 miles from
the United Refinery and that neither that monitor nor the Warren East
monitor are in the direction of the prevailing wind, 229.6 degrees.
Therefore, because of the lack of monitoring sites in all
municipalities, the ``dubious'' siting of existing monitors in
locations not in the path of prevailing winds, and the vast area of
Warren County not proximate to monitors, the claim by EPA that the
attainment plan evaluates SO2 emissions for the area is
unprovable. The commenter asserts that the plan is not approvable and
fails to meet the requirements of 40 CFR 51.112(a) which requires plans
to demonstrate that the measures are adequate to provide for timely
attainment and maintenance of NAAQS. The commenter asserts additional
``emissions monitors'' must be established in populated areas near the
refinery where people are most

likely exposed to SO2. The commenter urged EPA to reevaluate
the number and location of monitors to ensure accurate and timely data
regarding SO2 exposure.
    Response 6: EPA disagrees with the commenter. EPA used ambient
monitoring data to determine that the Warren Area was not attaining the
2010 SO2 NAAQS in 2013 (78 FR 47191), and consistent with
EPA's 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Guidance and EPA's Modeling
Guidance, PADEP provided modeling to determine that PADEP's attainment
plan will bring the entire nonattainment area into attainment with the
NAAQS. The 2010 primary SO2 NAAQS was established to be
protective of public health and the Warren Area attainment plan
modeling shows that the SO2 NAAQS will be met throughout the
nonattainment Area. EPA evaluated PADEP's modeling and emissions data
and determined that it has met all applicable requirements as described
in EPA's NPRM.
    PADEP operates more monitors in the area (and throughout the State)
than are required by the Population Weighted Emissions Index (PWEI)
requirement described in appendix D to 40 CFR part 58. PADEP
established the Warren Overlook monitor in November 1996 and the Warren
East monitor was established in January 2012. The monitors have been
sited correctly and in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR part
58, appendix E. Thus, EPA disagrees with the commenter that EPA must
reevaluate the number and location of SO2 monitors in the
area and disagrees with the commenter that the siting of ambient
monitors in the Area impacts our ability to approve the attainment plan
for this area. As Pennsylvania has the legally required monitoring for
the Area per 40 CFR part 58 and EPA finds the attainment plan otherwise
meets requirements in the CAA, EPA is approving the attainment plan for
the Warren Area.
    In addition, EPA approved Pennsylvania's November 17, 2017 Annual
Ambient Air Monitoring Network Plan on January 11, 2018 because it
meets the requirements of 40 CFR part 58.10, and has not in this SIP
approval action re-opened that prior monitoring plan approval
action.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ For informational purposes, EPA's approval letter for the
Pennsylvania November 17, 2017 Annual Ambient Air Monitoring Network
Plan is included in the docket for this rulemaking and available at
www.regulations.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 7: The commenter asserts that the United Refining COA is
designed only to ensure a violation at the monitor is not recorded and
that it is not protective of the health of citizens in the area since
the monitors are not properly placed. The commenter asserts that the
placement of monitors is such that they will have minimal likelihood of
detecting an exceedance. The commenter states that as currently
constructed, the Attainment Plan ``lacks sufficient measures to
expeditiously identify the source of any violation of the
SO2 NAAQS, and, more importantly, lacks essential safeguards
to trigger protection of public health and welfare across the entire
nonattainment area.''
    Response 7: EPA disagrees with the commenter. The 2010 primary
SO2 NAAQS was established to be protective of public health
and the Warren Area attainment plan modeling shows that the
SO2 NAAQS will be met throughout the nonattainment area.
    The COA between PADEP and United Refining was signed on September
29, 2017 and is included in the Docket in Appendix B of Pennsylvania's
submittal. The emissions limitations agreed to in the COA were modeled
by Pennsylvania to show that at the worst case (maximum allowable
emissions) scenario, emissions from United Refining will not be causing
nonattainment of the primary SO2 NAAQS anywhere in the
Warren Area. In addition, as discussed in Response 6, PADEP meets the
requirements for ambient monitoring as established in 40 CFR part 58,
appendices D and E. Thus, EPA is approving Pennsylvania's attainment
plan for the Warren Area.
    Comment 8: Two commenters addressed the NNSR Program in
Pennsylvania, as it relates to the addition of sour tip stripper units
that were installed at the United Refining plant in March 2018. The
first commenter asserts that while Pennsylvania concluded the
modification of the sour tip stripper unit to the Facility did not
trigger NNSR, the restart of the refinery after the modification,
should have prompted PADEP regulators ``to conduct the NNSR.'' The
commenter asked how EPA could conclude Pennsylvania's SIP meets
requirements of CAA 172(c)(5) for the Area and states that EPA should
pause approval of the attainment plan to conduct an audit of PADEP
compliance with NNSR regulations. The second commenter asks if the
modified sour tip units were taken into account with regard to the
proposed attainment plan and if United Refining is subject to the NNSR
program for the Warren Area.
    Response 8: EPA disagrees with the commenters, and notes that
several of the points they raise are outside the scope of this
attainment SIP approval action. Section 172(c)(5) of the CAA requires
that an attainment plan require permits for the construction and
operation of new or modified major stationary sources in a
nonattainment area. Pennsylvania has a NNSR program for criteria
pollutants in 25 Pennsylvania Code Chapter 127, Subchapter E, which was
approved into the Pennsylvania SIP on December 9, 1997 (62 FR 64722).
On May 14, 2012 (77 FR 28261), EPA approved a SIP revision pertaining
to the pre-construction permitting requirements of Pennsylvania's NNSR
program to update the regulations to meet EPA's 2002 NSR reform
regulations. EPA then approved an update to Pennsylvania's NNSR
regulations on July 13, 2012 (77 FR 41276). PADEP's currently SIP
approved NNSR program meets all of the requirements of CAA sections
175(c)(5) and 173 and 40 CFR 51.165 for SO2 sources
undergoing construction or major modification in the Warren Area. EPA
does not, as a general matter, evaluate individual permitting actions
in the context of a SIP revision. Nor do we ``audit'' a permitting
authority's implementation of already approved regulations in the
course of determining whether an individual SIP revision request meets
all applicable requirements of the CAA. If a source improperly avoids
NNSR permitting, the source is potentially subject to enforcement
action. As noted by the commenter, PADEP evaluated the installation of
the sour tips stripper unit and determined that the project did not
trigger major NNSR. The commenter has provided no evidence to conclude
that PADEP did so incorrectly. Regardless, if the commenter took issue
with PADEP's determination on the sour tips stripper installation, the
time to raise such concerns was during the permitting process, not
here, as individual permitting actions are not germane to this SIP
action which only evaluates whether the SIP includes the program as
required by CAA section 172(c)(5).
    In addition, the Warren Attainment Plan was submitted to EPA on
September 29, 2017, which was prior to the installation of the sour tip
units, and as such that installation was not included in the attainment
plan. However, the project was considered under Pennsylvania's NNSR
regulations; the project was evaluated and determined by PADEP to not
trigger major NNSR. Finally, EPA disagrees that the attainment plan
submitted to meet CAA section 172 needs to address any modifications at
sources in a nonattainment area that occur after the plan is submitted.
CAA section 172(c)(5) specifically requires attainment plans to include
NNSR permit programs which will ensure future construction or

modifications at sources (such as the sour tip units at United
Refining) do not interfere with an area attaining the NAAQS.
    Comment 9: Six commenters provided video and photos of a fire at
the United Refining facility in spring 2018, with identical comments.
The commenters inquired whether EPA or PADEP have been contacted about
the fires at the refinery, or if EPA or PADEP have been actively
involved in the restart of the refinery. The commenters inquired about
the types of pollutants that are being released during the refinery
fire, which they assert have been ongoing for three weeks.
    Response 9: EPA notes that none of the comments and photos sent by
commenters about fires at United Refining are related to the attainment
plan EPA has proposed to approve for the Warren Area or to the
reasoning EPA provided in the NPRM for our approval of the plan as
addressing requirements in CAA sections 110, 172, and 192. The fires do
not affect whether the limits that Pennsylvania has adopted suffice to
assure attainment or whether the plan more generally satisfies
applicable requirements. Thus, these comments are not germane to our
proposed rulemaking, and no response is necessary. However, EPA
reviewed PADEP's preliminary (yet to be quality assured or certified)
hourly SO2 data collected at the Warren Overlook and Warren
East monitors for the month of April, when the fires and related
flaring were reported to EPA.\10\ The ambient air quality monitor data
reviewed by EPA during this period do not show monitored SO2
concentrations approaching the NAAQS of 75 ppb. The highest hourly
concentration at the monitors during April 2018 was 22 ppb on April 23,
2018, which is well below the 2010 SO2 NAAQS. The commenters
have not provided any other information such as modeling of actual
emissions during the fire to suggest that there are NAAQS exceedances
that the monitors may have not detected.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ PADEP's preliminary ambient air monitoring data is
accessible in real-time at this site: http://www.ahs.dep.pa.gov/aq_apps/aadata/Default.aspx. EPA accessed the data on the morning of
Friday, May 18, 2018 and has provided this data in a memo to the
file in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving Pennsylvania's SIP revision submittal for the
Warren Area, as submitted through PADEP to EPA on September 29, 2017
for the purpose of demonstrating attainment of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS. EPA has determined that Pennsylvania's
SO2 attainment plan for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS
for the Warren Area meets the applicable requirements of the CAA in
sections 110 and 172 and comports with EPA's recommendations discussed
in the 2014 SO2 Nonattainment Guidance. Specifically, EPA is
approving the base year emissions inventory, a modeling demonstration
of SO2 attainment, an analysis of RACM/RACT, a RFP plan, and
contingency measures for the Warren Area, and concludes that the
Pennsylvania SIP has met requirements for NNSR for the 2010 1-hour
SO2 NAAQS. Additionally, EPA is approving into the
Pennsylvania SIP specific SO2 emission limits, compliance
parameters and contingency measures established for United Refining,
the SO2 source impacting the Warren Area. Furthermore,
approval of this SIP submittal removes EPA's duty to promulgate and
implement a FIP under CAA section 110(c) for the Warren Area.

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the portions
of the COA entered between Pennsylvania and United Refining Company on
September 29, 2017 that are not redacted. This includes emission limits
and associated compliance parameters, record-keeping and reporting, and
contingency measures. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these
materials generally available through https://www.regulations.gov/ or
at the EPA Region III Office (please contact the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more
information). Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for
inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into
that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113
of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's
approval, and will be incorporated by reference by the Director of the
Federal Register in the next update to the SIP compilation.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation
land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated
that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the
rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). The
Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a

rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a
rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will
submit a report containing this action and other required information
to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the
Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the
rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60
days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not
a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 11, 2018. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action of approving a SIP revision,
submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania through the Pennsylvania
PADEP, to EPA on September 29, 2017, for attainment of the 2010 1-hour
SO2 primary NAAQS in the Warren, Pennsylvania SO2
nonattainment area may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See CAA section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: September 28, 2018.
Cosmo Servidio,
Regional Administrator, Region III.
    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart NN--Pennsylvania

0
2. Amend Sec.  52.2020 by:
0
a. In paragraph (d)(3), adding an entry for ``United Refining Company''
at the end of the table; and
0
b. In paragraph (e)(1), adding an entry for ``Attainment Plan for the
Warren, Pennsylvania Nonattainment Area for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide
Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard'' at the end of the
table.
    The additions read as follows:

Sec.  52.2020   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *
    (3) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Additional
                                                                      State       EPA approval     explanation/
        Name of source            Permit No.          County        effective         date           52.2063
                                                                       date                          citation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
United Refining Company......  None............  Warren..........      9/29/17  10/12/18,        Sulfur dioxide
                                                                                [Insert          emission
                                                                                Federal          limits and
                                                                                Register         related
                                                                                citation].       parameters in
                                                                                unredacted
                                                                                portions of
                                                                                the Consent
                                                                                Order and
                                                                                Agreement.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (e) * * *
    (1) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            State
    Name of non-regulatory SIP          Applicable        submittal     EPA approval date        Additional
             revision                 geographic area        date                                explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Attainment Plan for the Warren,    Conewango Township,   ...........  10/12/18, [Insert     Includes base year
 Pennsylvania Nonattainment Area    Glade Township,                    Federal Register      emissions
 for the 2010 Sulfur Dioxide        Pleasant Township,                 citation].            inventory.
 Primary National Ambient Air       and the City of
 Quality Standard.                  Warren in Warren
                                    County.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 2018-22174 Filed 10-11-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 200 (Thursday, October 16, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 62135]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24552]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL15-4-000]

Trans-Allegheny Interstate Line Company; Notice of Petition for
Declaratory Order

    Take notice that on October 7, 2014, pursuant to Rule 207 of the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC or Commission) Rules of
Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.207 (2014), Trans-Allegheny
Interstate Line Company (TrAILCo) filed a petition for declaratory
order requesting that the Commission declare that the periodic payment
by TrAILCo of dividends out of paid-in capital to its parent
FirstEnergy Transmission, LLC (FET) will not violate section 305(a) of
the Federal Power Act.\1\ In addition, TrAILCo states that granting the
declaratory order will provide TrAILCo with the needed flexibility to
declare and pay periodic dividends to FET out of paid-in capital from
time to time as needed to maintain a balanced capital structure within
the range of capital structures approved by the Commission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 16 U.S.C. 825d (2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices,
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to
intervene or protests on persons other than the Petitioner.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 5 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on November 6, 2014.

    Dated: October 8, 2014.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-24552 Filed 10-15-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P