[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 174 (Friday, September 7, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 45426]
[FR Doc No: 2018-19404]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. CP17-495-000; CP17-494-000]

Notice of Anticipated Schedule of Final Order for the Jordan Cove
Project: Jordan Cove Energy Project, LP; Pacific Connector Gas
Pipeline, LP

    On September 21, 2017, Jordan Cove Energy Project, L.P. filed an
application in Docket No. CP17-495-000, pursuant to section 3 of the
Natural Gas Act (NGA) and Part 153 of the Commission's regulations, for
authorization to site, construct and operate a liquefied natural gas
export terminal and associated facilities on the bay side of the North
Spit of Coos Bay in unincorporated Coos County, Oregon. On the same
day, Pacific Connector Gas Pipeline, LP filed an application in Docket
No. CP17-494-000 requesting a Certificate of Public Convenience and
Necessity, pursuant to section 7(c) of the NGA and Parts 157 and 284 of
the Commission's regulations, to construct, operate, and maintain an
approximately 220-mile-long natural gas pipeline to be located in
Klamath, Jackson, Douglas, and Coos Counties, Oregon. The combined
proposed projects, known as the Jordan Cove Project (Project), would
liquefy and export about 7.8 million metric tons of natural gas per
annum.
    In accordance with Title 41 of the Fixing America's Surface
Transportation Act, enacted on December 4, 2015, agencies are to
publish completion dates for all federal environmental reviews and
authorizations. This notice identifies the Commission's anticipated
schedule for issuance of the final order for the Project, which is
based on the anticipated date of issuance of the final Environmental
Impact Statement. Accordingly, we currently anticipate issuing a final
order for the Project no later than:

Issuance of Final Order--November 29, 2019

    If a schedule change becomes necessary for the final order, an
additional notice will be provided so that interested parties and
government agencies are kept informed of the Project's progress.

    Dated: August 31, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-19404 Filed 9-6-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 174 (Thursday, September 8, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62037-62040]
[FR Doc No: 2016-21052]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2016-9000; Directorate Identifier 2016-CE-027-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Various Aircraft Equipped With BRP-
Powertrain GmbH & Co KG 912 A Series Engine

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for
various

aircraft equipped with a BRP-Powertrain GmbH & Co KG (formerly Rotax
Aircraft Engines) 912 A series engine. This proposed AD results from
mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an
aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe
condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as a manufacturing defect found in certain carburetor floats.
We are issuing this proposed AD to prevent the fuel supply to the
affected cylinder from becoming reduced or blocked, which could cause
an in-flight engine shutdown and result in a forced landing and damage
to the airplane or injury to the occupants.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by October 24,
2016.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
BRP-Powertrain GmbH & Co. KG, Welser Strasse 32, A-4623 Gunskirchen,
Austria; phone: +43 7246 601 0; fax: +43 7246 601 9130; Internet:
www.rotax-aircraft-engines.com. You may review this referenced service
information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas
City, Missouri 64106. For information on the availability of this
material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-
9000; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments
received, and other information. The street address for the Docket
Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments
will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2016-9000;
Directorate Identifier 2016-CE-027-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical
Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued AD
No.: 2016-0144, correction dated July 25, 2016, to correct an unsafe
condition for the specified products. The MCAI states:

    Due to a quality escape in the manufacturing process of certain
floats, Part Number (P/N) 861185, a partial separation of the float
outer skin may occur during engine operation. Separated particles
could lead to a restriction of the jets in the carburetor, possibly
reducing or blocking the fuel supply to the affected cylinder.
    This condition, if not detected and corrected, could lead to in-
flight engine shutdown and forced landing, possibly resulting in
damage to the aeroplane and injury to occupants.
    To address this potential unsafe condition, BRP-Powertrain
published Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) ASB-912-069/ASB-914-051
(single document, hereafter referred to as `the ASB' in this AD),
providing instructions for identification and replacement of the
affected parts.
    For the reasons stated above, this AD required identification
and replacement of the affected floats with serviceable parts.
    This AD is republished to correct one typographical error in
Table 2 of Appendix 2, and to include reference to revision 1 of the
ASB in the Referenced Publications.

You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov
by searching for and locating Docket No. FAA-2016-9000.

Related Service Information Under 1 CFR Part 51

    BRP-Powertrain GmbH & CO KG has issued Rotax Aircraft Engines BRP
Alert Service Bulletin ASB-912-069R1/ASB-914-051R1 (co-published as one
document), dated July 22, 2016. The service information describes
procedures for identifying and replacing defective carburetor floats.
This service information is reasonably available because the interested
parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by
the means identified in the ADDRESSES section of this NPRM.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they
have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and
service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because
we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists
and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type
design.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 65 products of U.S.
registry. We also estimate that it would take about 2 work-hours per
product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The
average labor rate is $85 per work-hour. Required parts would cost
about $100 per product.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on
U.S. operators to be $17,550, or $270 per product.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for

safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to
exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have 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.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

Various Aircraft: Docket No. FAA-2016-9000; Directorate Identifier
2016-CE-027-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by October 24, 2016.

(b) Affected ADs

    None.

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to all serial numbers (S/N) of the airplanes
listed in table 1 of paragraph (c) of this AD, certificated in any
category, that incorporate one of the following:
    (1) a BRP-Powertrain GmbH & Co KG (formerly Rotax Aircraft
Engines) 912 A series engine having a serial number with a
carburetor part number (P/N) and S/N listed in table 2 of paragraph
(c) of this AD, installed as noted, in cylinder head position 1
through 4; or
    (2) an engine that, after May 8, 2016, has had an affected
float, P/N 861185, installed in service as part of the airframe.
Affected floats were initially delivered between May 9, 2016, and
July 17, 2016, and do not have three dots stamped on the surface, as
shown in paragraph 3.3) of the Accomplishment/Instructions in Rotax
Aircraft Engines BRP Alert Service Bulletin ASB-912-069R1/ASB-914-
051R1 (co-published as one document), dated July 22, 2016. A
certification document (e.g., Form 1), delivery document or record
of previous installation of the float are acceptable to determine an
initial delivery on or before May 8, 2016.

              Table 1 of Paragraph (c)--Affected Airplanes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Type certificate holder         Aircraft model       Engine model
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aeromot-Ind[uacute]stria          AMT-200............             912 A2
 Mec[acirc]nico-
 Metal[uacute]rgica Ltda.
Diamond Aircraft Industries.....  HK 36 R ``SUPER                  912 A
                                   DIMONA''.
DIAMOND AIRCRAFT INDUSTRIES GmbH  HK 36 TS and HK 36              912 A3
                                   TC.
Diamond Aircraft Industries Inc.  DA20-A1............             912 A3
HOAC-Austria....................  DV 20 KATANA.......             912 A3
Iniziative Industriali Italiane   Sky Arrow 650 TC...             912 A2
 S.p.A.
SCHEIBE-Flugzeugbau GmbH........  SF 25C.............     912 A2, 912 A3
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                 Table 2 of Paragraph (c)--Affected Carburetors
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Engine                        Cylinder  position                Carburetor P/N and S/N
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
912A1, 912A2, 912A3, 912A4..............  1 or 3.....................  P/N 892500--S/Ns 161138 through 161143,
                                                                        161483 through 161490, 161493 through
                                                                        161507, 161516 through 161518, and
                                                                        161526.
                                          2 or 4.....................  P/N 892505--S/Ns 162193, 162194, 162196
                                                                        through 162199, and 162205.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 73: Engine--Fuel
and Control.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another
country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation
product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as a manufacturing
defect found in certain carburetor floats. We are issuing this AD to
require actions to prevent the fuel supply to the affected cylinder
from becoming reduced or blocked, which could cause an in-flight
engine shutdown and result in a forced landing and damage to the
airplane or injury to the occupants.

 (f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, do the following actions:
    (1) Within the next 25 hours time-in-service after the effective
date of this AD or within the next 30 days after the effective date
of this AD, whichever occurs first, replace all affected floats with
a serviceable float following paragraph (3) Accomplishment/
Instructions in Rotax Aircraft Engines BRP Alert Service Bulletin
ASB-912-069R1/ASB-914-051R1 (co-published as one document), dated
July 22, 2016.
    (2) As of the effective date of this AD, do not install a float,
P/N 861185, that does not have three dots stamped on the surface, as
shown in paragraph (3.3) of the Accomplishment/Instructions in Rotax
Aircraft Engines BRP Alert Service Bulletin ASB-912-069R1/ASB-914-
051R1 (co-published as one document), dated July 22, 2016.

(g) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to

ATTN: Jim Rutherford, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane
Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any approved AMOC on any
airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate
principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office
(FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(h) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.:
2016-0144, correction dated July 25, 2016, and BRP-Powertrain GmbH &
CO KG Rotax Aircraft Engines BRP Alert Service Bulletin ASB-912-069/
ASB-914-051 (co-published as one document), dated July 14, 2016, for
related information. You may examine the MCAI on the Internet at
http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket No.
FAA-2016-9000. For service information related to this AD, contact
BRP-Powertrain GmbH & Co. KG, Welser Strasse 32, A-4623 Gunskirchen,
Austria; phone: +43 7246 601 0; fax: +43 7246 601 9130; Internet:
www.rotax-aircraft-engines.com. You may review this referenced
service information at the FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901
Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on August 25, 2016.
David R. Showers,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2016-21052 Filed 9-7-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 223 (Tuesday, November 21, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 55362]
[FR Doc No: 2017-25162]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OEI-2017-0380; FRL--9971-06-OEI]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; Generic Clearance for the Collection of
Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), Generic Clearance for the
Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery (EPA ICR
No. 2434.75, OMB Control No. 2010-0042) to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is
currently approved through November 30, 2017. Public comments were
previously requested via the Federal Register (82 FR 33908) on July 21,
2017 during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an
additional 30 days for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR
is given below, including its estimated burden and cost to the public.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to
respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before December 21,
2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OEI-2017-0380, to (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), or by mail to: EPA Docket Center, Environmental
Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460, and (2) OMB via email to
[email protected]. Address comments to OMB Desk Officer for
EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Courtney Kerwin, Office of
Environmental Information, Regulatory Support Division, (2821T),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents which explain in detail
the information that the EPA will be collecting are available in the
public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is<PHONE_NUMBER>. For additional
information about EPA's public docket, visit http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: The proposed information collection activity provides a
means to garner qualitative customer and stakeholder feedback in an
efficient, timely manner, in accordance with the Agency's commitment to
improving service delivery. Qualitative feedback includes information
that provides useful insights on perceptions and opinions, but are not
statistical surveys that yield quantitative results that can be
generalized to the population of study. This feedback will provide
insights into customer or stakeholder perceptions, experiences and
expectations, provide an early warning of issues with service, or focus
attention on areas where communication, training or changes in
operations might improve delivery of products or services. These
collections will allow for ongoing, collaborative and actionable
communications between the Agency and its customers and stakeholders.
It will also allow feedback to contribute directly to the improvement
of program management. The solicitation of feedback will target areas
such as: Timeliness, appropriateness, accuracy of information,
courtesy, efficiency of service delivery, and resolution of issues with
service delivery. Responses will be assessed to plan and inform efforts
to improve or maintain the quality of service offered to the public.
The Agency will only submit a collection for approval under this
generic clearance if it meets the following conditions.
     The collections are voluntary.
     The collections are low-burden for respondents and are
low-cost for both the respondents and the Federal Government.
     The collections are noncontroversial and do not raise
issues of concern to other Federal agencies.
     Any collection is targeted to the solicitation of opinions
from respondents who have experience with the program or may have
experience with the program in the near future.
     Personally identifiable information (PII) is collected
only to the extent necessary and is not retained.
     Information gathered will be used only internally for
general service improvement and program management purposes and is not
intended for release outside of the agency.
     Information gathered will not be used for the purpose of
substantially informing influential policy decisions.
     Information gathered will yield qualitative information;
the collections will not be designed or expected to yield statistically
reliable results or used as though the results are generalizable to the
population of study.
    Respondents/affected entities: Individuals and Households;
Businesses and Organizations; State, Local or Tribal Government.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Voluntary.
    Estimated number of respondents: 120,000 (total).
    Frequency of response: Once per request.
    Total estimated burden: 30,000 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.03(b).
    Total estimated cost: $0 (per year), includes $0 annualized capital
or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the estimates: There is increase of 10,000 hours in the
total estimated respondent burden compared with the ICR currently
approved by OMB. This increase in hours is due to the increase in the
use of surveys by the Agency.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2017-25162 Filed 11-20-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Technical Support Document - Sections 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (Prong 3) and 110(a)(2)(J) related to Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) for Florida
	Section 110(a)(2)(C) has three components that must be addressed in infrastructure SIP submissions: enforcement, state-wide regulation of new and modified minor sources and minor modifications of major sources; and PSD permitting of major sources and major modifications in areas designated attainment or unclassifiable for the subject NAAQS as required by CAA title I part C (i.e., the major source PSD program).
	Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) has two components; 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).  Each of these components have two subparts resulting in four distinct components, commonly referred to as "prongs," that must be addressed in infrastructure SIP submissions.  The first two prongs, which are codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), are provisions that prohibit any source or other type of emissions activity in one state from contributing significantly to nonattainment of the NAAQS in another state ("prong 1"), and interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state ("prong 2").  The third and fourth prongs, which are codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), are provisions that prohibit emissions activity in one state interfering with measures required to prevent significant deterioration of air quality in another state ("prong 3"), or to protect visibility in another state ("prong 4").
	Section 110(a)(2)(J) has four components that must be addressed in infrastructure SIP submissions:  1) consultation with government officials, 2) public notification, 3) prevention of significant deterioration, and 4) visibility protection.
      With respect to the PSD Elements of 110(C) and (J), EPA interprets the CAA to require each state to make, for each new or revised NAAQS, an infrastructure SIP submission that demonstrates that the air agency has a complete PSD permitting program meeting the current requirements for all regulated NSR pollutants.  The requirements of Element 110(D)(i)(II) may also be satisfied by demonstrating the air agency has a complete PSD permitting program correctly addressing all regulated NSR pollutants.
The PSD Program Requirements for Infrastructure SIPs
      In order for the PSD elements of infrastructure SIP submissions to be approvable, a state's submission must demonstrate that all structural PSD program elements that are currently due under the CAA and EPA regulations are either approved into the SIP or are submitted for approval, in which case EPA must take final action to approve these elements before or simultaneously with its action on the infrastructure SIP.  There are four more recent structural PSD program requirements that are relevant to EPA's review of the PSD Elements of the infrastructure SIP submissions. The EPA regulations that require these SIP revisions are:  1) the Phase II Rule; 2) the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Tailoring Rule as consistent with the holding in Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency; 3) the NSR Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Rule; and, 4) the PM2.5 PSD Increment-Significant Impact Levels (SILs)-Significant Monitoring Concentrations (SMC) Rule (only as it relates to PM2.5 Increments).  Specific details on these PSD requirements can be found in the respective final rules cited above, however, a brief summary of each rule is provided below.
      The Phase II rule established federal NSR permitting requirements for the implementation of the ozone NAAQS including recognizing nitrogen oxide as an ozone precursor.  See 70 FR 71612.
      The GHG Tailoring Rule established emission thresholds for determining which new stationary sources and modification projects become subject to PSD permitting requirements for their GHG emissions.  See 75 FR 31514.  EPA notes that on June 23, 2014, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision addressing the application of PSD permitting requirements to GHG emissions. See Utility Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency, 134 S. Ct. 2427.  In that decision, the Supreme Court said that the EPA may not treat GHGs as an air pollutant for purposes of determining whether a source is a major source required to obtain a PSD permit.  The Court also said that the EPA could continue to require that PSD permits, otherwise required based on emissions of pollutants other than GHGs, contain limitations on GHG emissions based on the application of Best Available Control Technology (BACT).
      In accordance with the Supreme Court decision, on April 10, 2015, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the D.C. Circuit) issued an Amended Judgment (Coalition for Responsible Regulation, Inc. v. EPA, Nos. 09-1322, 10-073, 10-1092 and 10-1167), vacating the regulations that implemented Step 2 of the EPA's PSD and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule, but not the regulations that implement Step 1 of that rule.  Step 1 of the Tailoring Rule covers sources that are required to obtain a PSD permit based on emissions of pollutants other than GHGs.  Step 2 applied to sources that emitted only GHGs above the thresholds triggering the requirement to obtain a PSD permit.  The amended judgment preserves, without the need for additional rulemaking by the EPA, the application of the Best Available Control Technology (BACT) requirement to GHG emissions from Step 1 or "anyway" sources. With respect to Step 2 sources, the D.C. Circuit's amended judgment vacated the regulations at issue in the litigation, including 40 CFR 51.166(b)(48)(v) and 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49)(v), "to the extent they require a stationary source to obtain a PSD permit if greenhouse gases are the only pollutant (i) that the source emits or has the potential to emit above the applicable major source thresholds, or (ii) for which there is a significant emission increase from a modification."  The D.C. Circuit simultaneously issued its mandate, which means that the Coalition Amended Judgment became final and effective upon issuance.
      On August 12, 2015, EPA signed a final rule that removes from the PSD regulations certain regulatory provisions that require a stationary source to obtain a PSD permit solely on the basis of the source's GHG emissions (Step 2) and the regulations that require the EPA to consider further phasing-in GHG permitting requirements into the PSD.  The EPA intends to further revise the PSD regulations to fully implement the Coalition Amended Judgment in a separate rulemaking.  States may submit revisions to their PSD SIP program consistent with EPA's amended regulations whenever feasible.  At this juncture, EPA is not expecting states to have revised their PSD programs for purposes of infrastructure SIP submissions and is only evaluating such submissions to assure that the state's program correctly addresses GHGs consistent with the court decisions discussed above and EPA's revised regulations.
      At present, the EPA has determined that Florida's infrastructure SIP is sufficient to satisfy the PSD Elements (C), (D)(i)(II), and (J) with respect to GHGs.  This is because the PSD permitting program previously approved by the EPA into the SIP continues to require that PSD permits issued to "anyway sources" contain limitations on GHG emissions based on the application of BACT.  The approved Florida PSD permitting program still contains some provisions regarding Step 2 sources that are no longer necessary in light of the Supreme Court decision and D.C. Circuit amended judgment.  Nevertheless, the presence of these provisions in the previously-approved plan does not render the infrastructure SIP submission inadequate to satisfy the PSD Elements (C), (D)(i)(II), and (J).  The SIP contains the PSD requirements for applying the BACT requirement to greenhouse gas emissions from "anyway sources" that are necessary at this time.  The application of those requirements is not impeded by the presence of other previously-approved provisions regarding the permitting of Step 2 sources.  Accordingly, the Supreme Court decision and subsequent D.C. Circuit judgment do not prevent the EPA's approval of Florida's infrastructure SIP as to the requirements of the PSD Elements (C), (D)(i)(II), and (J).
      The 2008 NSR PM2.5 Rule and 2010 PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule (only as it relates to PM2.5 Increments) established NSR permitting requirements for the implementation of the PM2.5 NAAQS including increments pursuant to section 166(a) of the CAA to prevent significant deterioration of air quality in areas meeting the NAAQS.  See 73 FR 28321 and 75 FR 64864.  On January 22, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, in Sierra Club v. EPA, 703 F.3d 458 (D.C. Cir. 2013), issued a judgment that, among other things, vacated the provisions adding the PM2.5 SMC to the Federal regulations, at 40 CFR 51.166(i)(5)(i)(c) and 52.21(i)(5)(i)(c), that were promulgated as part of the 2010 PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule.  See 75 FR 64864; see also, Sierra Club v. EPA, 703 F.3d 458 (D.C. Cir. 2013).  In its decision, the court held that EPA did not have the authority to use SMCs to exempt permit applicants from the statutory requirement in section 165(e)(2) of the CAA that ambient monitoring data for PM2.5 be included in all PSD permit applications.  Thus, although the PM2.5 SMC was not a required element of a State's PSD program and thus not a structural requirement for purposes of infrastructure SIPs, were a SIP-approved PSD program that contains such a provision to use that provision to issue new permits without requiring ambient PM2.5 monitoring data, such application of the SIP would be inconsistent with the court's opinion and the requirements of section 165(e)(2) of the CAA.  Because of the vacatur of the EPA regulations, the SMC provisions included in states' SIP-approved PSD programs on the basis of EPA's regulations are unlawful and no longer federally enforceable by law.  Permits issued on the basis of these provisions as they appear in approved SIPs would be inconsistent with the CAA and difficult to defend in administrative and judicial challenges.  Thus, the SIP provisions may not be applied even prior to their removal from the SIPs.  States should instead require applicants requesting a PSD permit, including those having already been applied for but for which the permit has not yet been received, to submit ambient PM2.5 monitoring data in accordance with the CAA requirements whenever either direct PM2.5 or any PM2.5 precursor is emitted in a significant amount.
      On December 9, 2013, EPA issued a final rulemaking to remove the vacated and remanded PM2.5 SILs and the vacated PM2.5 SMC provisions from 40 CFR 51.166 and 52.21.  See 79 FR 73698.  Because the Court vacated the PM2.5 SMC provisions in 40 CFR 51.166(i)(5)(i)(c) and 52.21(i)(5)(i)(c), EPA revised the existing concentration for the PM2.5 SMC listed in sections 51.166(i)(5)(i)(c) and 52.21(i)(5)(i)(c) to zero micrograms per cubic meter (0 mg/m[3]).  Were EPA to completely remove PM2.5 from the list of pollutants in sections 51.166(i)(5)(i)(c) and 52.21(i)(5)(i)(c) of the PSD regulations, PM2.5 would no longer be a listed pollutant.
      EPA did not entirely remove PM2.5 as a listed pollutant in the SMC provisions so as to avoid any potential that sections 51.166(i)(5)(iii) and 52.21(i)(5)(iii) could be interpreted as giving reviewing authorities the discretion to exempt permit applicants from the requirement to conduct monitoring for PM2.5.  Such a conclusion would contravene the Court's decision and the CAA.
      By continuing to include PM2.5 as a pollutant in the list contained in sections 51.166(i)(5)(i) and 52.21(i)(5)(i), with the numerical value replaced with 0 mg/m[3], we avoid any concern that paragraph (iii) of the two affected sections could be applied to excuse permit applicants from adequately addressing the monitoring requirement for PM2.5.
      EPA also advises states to begin preparations to remove the PM2.5 provisions from their state PSD regulations and SIPs.  As the previously-approved PM2.5 SMC SIP provisions are no longer enforceable, EPA does not believe the existence of these provisions in state implementation plans precludes approval of the infrastructure SIP submissions.

EPA's Analysis of How Florida Addressed Sections 110(a)(2)(C), 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (prong 3) and 110(a)(2)(J) related to PSD
      Described below is EPA's analysis of how Florida infrastructure SIP submissions meet the requirements of the PSD Elements for the NAAQS for which they were submitted.  This analysis includes review of the EPA's previous approval of the four structural PSD program requirements which is summarized in Table 1 below.
      Table 1 - EPA approved structural PSD program requirements for Florida
                                 Phase II Rule
                      Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Tailoring Rule
                                NSR PM2.5 Rule
                       PM2.5 PSD Increment-SILs-SMC Rule
                          June 15, 2012 (77 FR 35862)
                          May 19, 2014 (79 FR 28607)
                       September 19, 2012 (77 FR 58027)
                              September 19, 2012
                                 (77 FR 58027)


[Federal Register: September 8, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 173)]
[Notices]
[Page 54621]
[DOCID:fr08se10-70]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project Nos. 2621-009 and 12770-000]

Lockhart Power Company--South Carolina Pacolet Hydroelectric
Project; Notice of Proposed Restricted Service List for a Programmatic
Agreement for Managing Properties Included in or Eligible for Inclusion
in the National Register of Historic Places

August 30, 2010.
    Rule 2010 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's
(Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure provides that, to
eliminate unnecessary expense or improve administrative efficiency, the
Secretary may establish a restricted service list for a particular
phase or issue in a proceeding.\1\ The restricted service list should
contain the names of persons on the service list who, in the judgment
of the decisional authority establishing the list, are active
participants with respect to the phase or issue in the proceeding for
which the list is established.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 385.2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Commission staff is consulting with the South Carolina State
Historic Preservation Officer (hereinafter, South Carolina SHPO), and
the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (hereinafter, Council)
pursuant to the Council's regulations, 36 CFR part 800, implementing
section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended, (16
U.S.C. section 470 f), to prepare and execute a programmatic agreement
for managing properties included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the
National Register of Historic Places at the Pacolet Hydroelectric
Project Nos. 2621 and 12770.
    The programmatic agreement, when executed by the Commission and the
South Carolina SHPO would satisfy the Commission's section 106
responsibilities for all individual undertakings carried out in
accordance with the license until the license expires or is terminated
(36 CFR 800.13[e]). The Commission's responsibilities pursuant to
section 106 for the Pacolet Hydroelectric Project would be fulfilled
through the programmatic agreement, which the Commission proposes to
draft in consultation with certain parties listed below. The executed
programmatic agreement would be incorporated into any Order issuing a
license.
    Lockhart Power Company, as licensee for Pacolet Hydroelectric
Project Nos. 2621 and 12770, and the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians
have expressed an interest in this preceding and are invited to
participate in consultations to develop the programmatic agreement.
    For purposes of commenting on the programmatic agreement, we
propose to restrict the service list for the aforementioned project as
follows:

John Eddins or Representative, Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation, The Old Post Office Building, Suite 803, 1100
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004.
Carolina Dover Wilson or Representative, Review and Compliance
Coordinator, South Carolina Department of Archives & History, 8301
Parklane Road, Columbia, SC 29223.
Tyler Howe or Representative, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, Qualla
Boundary, P.O. Box 455, Cherokee, NC 28719.
C. Shane Boring, Kleinschmidt Associates, 204 Caughman Farm Lane, Suite
301, Lexington, SC 29072.
Bryan D. Stone or Representative, Lockhart Power Company, P.O. Box 10,
420 River Street, Lockhart, SC 29364.

    Any person on the official service list for the above-captioned
proceeding may request inclusion on the restricted service list, or may
request that a restricted service list not be established, by filing a
motion to that effect within 15 days of this notice date. In a request
for inclusion, please identify the reason(s) why there is an interest
to be included. Also please identify any concerns about historic
properties, including Traditional Cultural Properties. If historic
properties are to be identified within the motion, please use a
separate page, and label it NON-PUBLIC Information.
    Any such motions may be filed electronically via the Internet. See
18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web
site (http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ferconline.asp) under the
``eFiling'' link. For a simpler method of submitting text only
comments, click on ``Quick Comment.'' For assistance, please contact
FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>call toll-free at
(866) 208-3676; or, for TTY, contact<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the
Commission strongly encourages electronic filing, documents may also be
paper-filed. To paper-file, mail an original and seven copies to:
Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. Please put the project number
(P-2621-009 and P-12770-000) on the first page of the filing.
    If no such motions are filed, the restricted service list will be
effective at the end of the 15-day period. Otherwise, a further notice
will be issued ruling on any motion or motions filed within the 15-day
period.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-22268 Filed 9-7-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P