[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 10 (Friday, January 14, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 2581-2589]
[FR Doc No: 2011-768]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0107; FRL-9253-3]

Action To Ensure Authority To Issue Permits Under the Prevention
of Significant Deterioration Program to Sources of Greenhouse Gas
Emissions: Federal Implementation Plan for Jefferson County, KY

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is establishing a federal implementation plan (FIP) to
apply in Jefferson County, Kentucky because the

Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District (LMAPCD), through the
Commonwealth of Kentucky, has not submitted by its established deadline
of January 1, 2011, a state implementation plan (SIP) revision to apply
their Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) program to sources of greenhouse gases (GHGs). This
action will ensure that a permitting authority--EPA--is available in
Jefferson County, Kentucky to issue preconstruction PSD permits to GHG-
emitting sources. This action is related to EPA's recent final rule,
the GHG PSD SIP Call, published on December 13, 2010, in which EPA made
a finding of substantial inadequacy and issued a SIP call to LMAPCD
because the SIP for Jefferson County does not apply the PSD program to
GHG-emitting sources.

DATES: This action is effective on January 14, 2011.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0107. All documents in the docket are
listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other
material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only
in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically in http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West
Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The
Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public
Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number for the Air
Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Cheryl Vetter, Air Quality Policy
Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (C504-03),
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For more information on the LMAPCD or
Jefferson County, Kentucky, contact Ms. Lynorae Benjamin, Chief,
Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides
and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms.
Benjamin's telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    The entity affected by this rule is the LMAPCD, which is the local
permitting authority \1\ that has jurisdiction in Jefferson County,
Kentucky. The LMAPCD was identified by EPA as not having submitted a
SIP revision that would apply PSD requirements to GHG-emitting sources
by its SIP submittal deadline of January 1, 2011. In the GHG PSD SIP
call,\2\ EPA determined that the Jefferson County portion of the
Kentucky SIP is substantially inadequate to achieve CAA requirements
because its PSD programs do not apply to GHG-emitting sources. EPA
established the deadline after the LMAPCD indicated that it would not
object to a deadline of January 1, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For convenience, we refer to ``states'' in this rulemaking
to collectively mean states and local permitting authorities.
    \2\ Action to Ensure Authority to Issue Permits under the
Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program to Sources of
Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Finding of Substantial Inadequacy and SIP
Call--Final rule, 75 FR 77698 (December 13, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Entities potentially affected by this rule also include sources in
all industry groups, which have a direct obligation under the CAA to
obtain a PSD permit for GHGs for projects that meet the applicability
thresholds set forth in the Tailoring Rule.\3\ This independent
obligation on sources is specific to PSD and derives from CAA section
165(a). Any source that is subject to a state PSD air permitting
regulation not structured to apply to GHG-emitting sources will rely on
this rule to obtain a permit that contains emission limitations that
conform to requirements under CAA section 165(a). The majority of
entities potentially affected by this action are expected to be in the
following groups:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V
Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule; Final Rule. 75 FR 31514 (June 3,
2010).

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Industry group                          NAICS \a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Utilities (electric, natural gas, other     2211, 2212, 2213
 systems).
Manufacturing (food, beverages, tobacco,    311, 312, 313, 314, 315, 316
 textiles, leather).
Wood product, paper manufacturing.........  321, 322
Petroleum and coal products manufacturing.  32411, 32412, 32419
Chemical manufacturing....................  3251, 3252, 3253, 3254,
                                             3255, 3256, 3259
Rubber product manufacturing..............  3261, 3262
Miscellaneous chemical products...........  32552, 32592, 32591, 325182,
                                             32551
Nonmetallic mineral product manufacturing.  3271, 3272, 3273, 3274, 3279
Primary and fabricated metal manufacturing  3311, 3312, 3313, 3314,
                                             3315, 3321, 3322, 3323,
                                             3324, 3325, 3326, 3327,
                                             3328, 3329
Machinery manufacturing...................  3331, 3332, 3333, 3334,
                                             3335, 3336, 3339
Computer and electronic products            3341, 3342, 3343, 3344,
 manufacturing.                              3345, 4446
Electrical equipment, appliance, and        3351, 3352, 3353, 3359
 component manufacturing.
Transportation equipment manufacturing....  3361, 3362, 3363, 3364,
                                             3365, 3366, 3366, 3369
Furniture and related product               3371, 3372, 3379
 manufacturing.
Miscellaneous manufacturing...............  3391, 3399
Waste management and remediation..........  5622, 5629
Hospitals/nursing and residential care      6221, 6231, 6232, 6233, 6239
 facilities.
Personal and laundry services.............  8122, 8123
Residential/private households............  8141
Non-residential (commercial)..............  Not available. Codes only
                                             exist for private
                                             households, construction
                                             and leasing/sales
                                             industries.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ North American Industry Classification System.

B. How is the preamble organized?

    The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. How is the preamble organized?
II. Overview of Rulemaking
III. Final Action and Response to Comments
    A Authority To Promulgate a FIP
    B. Timing of GHG PSD FIP
    C. Substance of GHG PSD FIP
    D. Period for GHG PSD FIP To Remain in Place
    E. Primacy of SIP Process
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866--Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132--Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175--Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045--Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211--Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898--Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
    K. Determination Under Section 307(d)
    L. Congressional Review Act
V. Judicial Review
VI. Statutory Authority

II. Overview of Rulemaking

    In this rulemaking, EPA is establishing a FIP, which we call the
GHG PSD FIP, or simply, the FIP, to apply in Jefferson County, Kentucky
because the LMAPCD did not submit by January 1, 2011, a corrective SIP
revision to apply their CAA PSD program to sources of GHGs in Jefferson
County, Kentucky.\4\ This is the deadline EPA established after the
LMAPCD indicated that it would not object to it, to ensure that a
permitting authority would be in place soon after January 2, 2011, to
facilitate issuance of PSD permits for construction and modification of
sources. This action does not relate to the rest of Kentucky, as the
Commonwealth, through the Kentucky Energy and Environment Cabinet
(KEEC), submitted a corrective SIP revision to address the remainder of
Kentucky on December 13, 2010. This SIP revision was approved by EPA on
December 29, 2010 (75 FR 81868).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Louisville Metro Air Pollution Control District is the
local agency that has jurisdiction over sources in Jefferson County,
Kentucky.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This preamble should be read in conjunction with the preamble for
the proposed rulemaking for this action, which we call the GHG PSD FIP
proposal or the FIP proposal; \5\ and the SIP Call rulemaking that is
associated with this rulemaking, including (i) the proposed SIP Call
rulemaking, which we call the GHG PSD SIP Call proposal or the SIP Call
proposal, and which accompanied the FIP proposal; \6\ (ii) the final
SIP Call rulemaking, which we call the GHG PSD SIP Call or the SIP
Call; and (iii) the GHG PSD FIP final rule which covers seven states
other than Jefferson County, Kentucky.\7\ Background information for
this rulemaking is found in those rulemakings and in the rulemakings
referenced therein and will not be reiterated here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Action to Ensure Authority to Issue Permits under the
Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program to Sources of
Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Federal Implementation Plan--Proposed
rule, 75 FR 53883 (September 2, 2010).
    \6\ Action to Ensure Authority to Issue Permits under the
Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program to Sources of
Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Finding of Substantial Inadequacy and SIP
Call--Proposed rule, 75 FR 53892 (September 2, 2010).
    \7\ Action to Ensure Authority to Issue Permits under the
Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program to Sources of
Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Federal Implementation Plan--Final Rule,
75 FR 82246 (December 30, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By notices dated September 2, 2010, EPA published as companion
actions the SIP Call proposal and the FIP proposal. In the SIP Call
proposal, EPA proposed to find that 13 states with EPA-approved SIP PSD
programs are substantially inadequate to meet CAA requirements because
they do not appear to apply PSD requirements to GHG-emitting sources.
For each of these states, EPA proposed to require the state (through a
SIP call) to revise its SIP as necessary to correct such inadequacies.
In the FIP proposal, EPA proposed a FIP to apply in any state that is
unable to submit, by its deadline, a corrective SIP revision to apply
the PSD program to sources of GHGs. The FIP would provide authority to
EPA to issue PSD permits for construction or modification of
appropriate GHG sources in the state.
    On December 1, 2010, EPA promulgated the GHG PSD SIP Call, and EPA
published it by notice dated December 13, 2010.\8\ In the SIP call, EPA
finalized its finding that the SIPs of 13 states (comprising 15 state
and local programs) are substantially inadequate to meet CAA
requirements because they do not apply PSD requirements to GHG-emitting
sources. In addition, EPA finalized a SIP Call for each of these
states, which required the state to revise its SIP as necessary to
correct such inadequacies. Further, EPA established a deadline for each
state to submit its corrective SIP revision. These deadlines, which
differed among the states, ranged from December 22, 2010, to December
1, 2011. The LMAPCD requested a SIP deadline of January 1, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Action to Ensure Authority to Issue Permits Under the
Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program to Sources of
Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Finding of Substantial Inadequacy and SIP
Call--Final Rule, 75 FR 77698 (December 13, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In a separate notice, EPA is also issuing a finding under CAA
section 110(c)(1)(A) that the LMAPCD ``failed to make [the] required
submission'' of the corrective SIP call-mandated SIP revision for
Jefferson County, Kentucky by its January 1, 2011 deadline. EPA
notified the LMAPCD of the finding by letter. That letter is located in
the docket for this rulemaking.

III. Final Action and Response to Comments

A. Authority To Promulgate a FIP

    In this rulemaking, EPA is finalizing the GHG PSD FIP as proposed
for Jefferson County, Kentucky. This rulemaking does not relate to the
remainder of the Commonwealth as EPA has already taken final action to
approve the Commonwealth's corrective SIP for all areas in Kentucky
except for Jefferson County. See 75 FR 81868.
    The CAA authority for EPA to promulgate a FIP is found in CAA
section 110(c)(1), which provides--

    The Administrator shall promulgate a Federal implementation plan
at any time within 2 years after the Administrator--(A) finds that a
State has failed to make a required submission * * * unless the
State corrects the deficiency, and [EPA] approves the plan or plan
revision, before the Administrator promulgates such [FIP].

    As noted earlier in this preamble, EPA is issuing a finding that
the LMAPCD, through the Commonwealth of Kentucky, ``failed to make
[the] required submission'' of the corrective SIP Call-mandated SIP
revision by its January 1, 2011, deadline. Accordingly, under CAA
section 110(c)(1), EPA is required to promulgate a FIP for Jefferson
County, Kentucky. It should be noted that EPA specifically proposed the
FIP for Jefferson County, Kentucky.
    We reiterate that the LMAPCD indicated to EPA that it preferred
that EPA promulgate a FIP to take effect soon after January 2, 2011--
when sources in the state become subject to PSD--rather than wait to
promulgate a FIP until a later time. This is because the LMAPCD wishes
to assure that a permitting authority for GHG-emitting sources is in
place in Jefferson County, Kentucky should a permit be sought that
requires consideration of GHGs. The LMAPCD

made this choice by indicating that they did not object to EPA
establishing a SIP submittal date of January 1, 2011, when EPA made
clear in the proposed SIP Call and FIP that if the state did not submit
the required SIP revision by that date, then EPA would promulgate the
FIP the next day. 75 FR at 53904/2 (proposed SIP Call); id. at 53889/2
(proposed FIP). Although the LMAPCD requested a later SIP deadline than
the earliest date (i.e., December 22, 2010), they believe that this
will only mean a short delay in the availability of a permitting
authority for GHG-emitting sources in their state, and that delay will
not adversely affect their sources.
    In this rulemaking, EPA is not taking final action to promulgate a
FIP for any of the other states beside Jefferson County, Kentucky which
EPA included in the FIP proposal. This is because each of the other
states falls into one of the following three categories: (1) EPA did
not finalize the SIP call for this state; (2) EPA has already issued a
FIP for this state; \9\ or (3) EPA did finalize the SIP call but
established a SIP submittal deadline that has not yet arrived. As EPA
noted in the GHG FIP signed on December 23, 2010, it continues to be
EPA's intent that if any of these other states does not submit the
required SIP revision by its deadline, then EPA will immediately issue
a finding of failure to submit a required SIP submission and
immediately promulgate a GHG PSD FIP for that state.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ On December 30, 2010, EPA published a notice to promulgate a
FIP for seven states that received a SIP submittal deadline of
December 22, 2010. Based on information received from each of these
states during the public comment period, they indicated that they
would not object to this early deadline for allowing a FIP to be put
in place. These seven states are: (1) Arizona: Both Pinal County and
Rest of State (excluding Maricopa County, Pima County, and Indian
Country); (2) Arkansas; (3) Florida; (4) Idaho; (5) Kansas; (6)
Oregon; and (7) Wyoming.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In comments received, some commenters stated, ``Remarkably, EPA
states that it will also directly promulgate a SIP call and FIP for any
states it has inadvertently omitted from its notice of proposed
rulemaking.'' Although the commenters do not elaborate upon this
statement, they seem to imply that it would be improper for EPA to
finalize a FIP for such states because we did not provide adequate
notice and opportunity for comment.
    This comment is not relevant to Jefferson County, Kentucky, as the
proposed SIP call and FIP explicitly name Jefferson County as an area
that may be included in the final SIP Call and FIP. Furthermore, we
disagree with the commenters, and have discussed and responded to this
comment in great detail in the SIP Call, 75 FR at 77715-16, and the
December 30, 2010 FIP, 75 FR 82248.

B. Timing of GHG PSD FIP

    In the GHG PSD FIP proposal, we stated:

    If any of the states for which we issue the SIP Call does not
meet its SIP submittal deadline, we will immediately issue a finding
of failure to submit a required SIP submission, under CAA section
110(c)(1)(A), and immediately thereafter promulgate a FIP for the
state. This timing for FIP promulgation is authorized under CAA
section 110(c)(1), which authorizes us to promulgate a FIP ``at any
time within 2 years after'' finding a failure to submit a required
SIP submission. We intend to take these actions immediately in order
to minimize any period of time during which larger-emitting sources
may be under an obligation to obtain PSD permits for their GHGs when
they construct or modify, but no permitting authority is authorized
to issue those permits.

75 FR at 53,889/2.

    In this final rulemaking, we are proceeding in the same manner that
we proposed, and for the same reasons. That is, we are exercising our
discretion to promulgate the FIP for Jefferson County ``immediately in
order to minimize any period of time during which larger-emitting
sources may be under an obligation to obtain PSD permits for their GHGs
when they construct or modify, but no permitting authority is
authorized to issue those permits.'' 75 FR at 53889/2. We believe that
acting immediately is in the best interests of the states and the
regulated community.
    EPA received comments that the process EPA has employed in this
action, which was to propose the FIP as a companion rule to the
proposed SIP call, and then to finalize the FIP immediately after
making a finding that a state has not submitted the required SIP
revision by its deadline, ``is not how CAA section 110 works or how
Congress intended it to work.'' The commenter added that--

    [O]nly after a state has * * * failed to [submit a SIP revision]
after an applicable period as specified in the CAA or EPA
regulations * * * and after EPA has made a determination that the
SIP revision is deficient in one or more respects, may the Agency
step in to propose a FIP rule. And only after taking that step could
EPA then proceed * * * [to take final action on the FIP.]
Notwithstanding EPA's strained and out-of-context emphasis on the
isolated sentence fragment, ``at any time within,'' the very fact
that the CAA affords EPA up to two full years in which to complete
the cooperative task of considering whether a FIP is needed and how
such a plan should be fashioned, and the corollary fact that the Act
does not mandate any federal takeover in less than two years,
militate against EPA's approach here to FIP rulemaking. In
particular, those facts undermine EPA's assumption that it need not
take the time to develop a proposed plan specifically directed at
remedying identified deficiencies in a given state submission, and
to give states and the regulated community a meaningful opportunity
to comment on a proposed FIP that has been specifically developed to
address the individual needs and circumstances of such a state.
(Emphasis in original.)
    EPA disagrees with these comments. As we stated in the proposed
rule, CAA section 110(c)(1)(A) authorizes EPA to promulgate a FIP ``at
any time within 2 years after'' finding a failure to submit a required
SIP revision. As we did in the seven-state FIP issued on December 30,
2010, here we are promulgating the FIP immediately because we wish to
minimize any disruption in permitting for the larger GHG-emitting
sources and we are doing so after consultation with the affected state.
The LMAPCD told EPA that they would not object to the promulgation of a
FIP at the earliest possible date after January 1, 2011. Without the
FIP, Jefferson County, Kentucky would be without an approved program to
issue PSD permits for GHG-emitting sources until the LMAPCD, through
the Commonwealth of Kentucky, submits, and EPA approves, a SIP
revision. The FIP provides sources in Jefferson County, Kentucky with
an immediate mechanism to obtain required permits for construction and
modification until the revised SIP is approved.
    As for commenters' analysis of CAA section 110(c), that provision,
by its terms, imposes no constraints on when EPA may propose a FIP.
This stands in contrast to other CAA provisions that do impose
requirements for the timing of proposals. See CAA sections
109(a)(1)(A), 111(b)(1)(B). In light of the lack of constraints in CAA
section 110(c), EPA was free to propose the FIP at the same time that
EPA proposed the SIP call. We do not agree that the overall construct
of CAA section 110 imposes the implicit constraints that the commenter
identifies.
    Instead, what is important is that for each of the 13 states for
which EPA specifically proposed the FIP, which were the same as the
ones for which EPA proposed the SIP Call, the public had adequate
notice of the circumstances under which EPA proposed that the state
would become subject to the FIP. Those circumstances were that if EPA
finalized the SIP Call, as proposed, for the state, and if the state
did not submit a SIP revision

applying its PSD program to GHG-emitting sources by the deadline, EPA
would establish a FIP for that state. In fact, EPA did finalize the SIP
call for all but one of those 13 states and is now finalizing the FIP
for Jefferson County, Kentucky. Further, EPA received comments on the
proposed FIP from several states and/or industries located in states
for which EPA proposed the FIP, which indicates that the FIP proposal
provided adequate notice. See, e.g., comments identified in the
rulemaking docket as document numbers 0084.1 (Texas), 0055.1
(Arkansas), 0066.1 (Texas Industry Project), and 0109.1 (National
Mining Association).
    Moreover, EPA was clear that for each state subject to the SIP Call
that did not submit the required SIP revision by its SIP submittal
deadline, EPA would immediately make a finding of failure to submit and
immediately promulgate a FIP. EPA explained that this approach was
needed to assure the availability of a permitting authority for sources
in the state.
    Finally, each of the states and the public in general had adequate
notice of the terms of the FIP as it would apply in any state.
Specifically, EPA indicated that the FIP would apply PSD to GHG-
emitting sources at the Tailoring Rule thresholds.
    Therefore, the FIP proposal was clear as to the circumstances under
which EPA proposed to promulgate a FIP, the timing for the FIP, and the
terms of the FIP. Moreover, each of those three things applied to each
state that would become subject to the SIP Call. Accordingly, the FIP
proposal did, in fact, ``give states and the regulated community a
meaningful opportunity to comment on a proposed FIP that has been
specifically developed to address the individual needs and
circumstances of such a state,'' as the commenter argues the FIP
proposal needed to do.
    Several commenters raised an additional objection, which was that
in their view, EPA failed to comply with the requirements of CAA
section 307(d)(3) that (i) the proposed FIP include a summary of ``the
factual data on which the proposed rule is based'' and ``the major
legal interpretations and policy considerations underlying the proposed
rule''; and (ii) ``[a]ll data, information, and documents * * * on
which the proposed rule relies shall be included in the docket on the
date of publication of the proposed rule.'' (Emphasis added by one of
these commenters.) One of these commenters explained that (a) in the
SIP Call proposal, EPA had made a detailed request that states provide
information as to whether their state law authorized the application of
PSD to GHG-emitting sources; (b) this detailed request demonstrated
that the proposal did not establish the legal basis for the SIP Call;
and (c) as a result, the FIP proposal did not include ``information
that is essential to determining whether a FIP for a given state is
even appropriate and justified.'' (Emphasis in original.) This
commenter added--

    Only after EPA has received such information, and then taken the
necessary time to evaluate the information and to make judgments as
to whether or not a given state has authority under its SIP and
other elements of state law to regulate GHGs under the PSD program--
i.e., the steps EPA would have to take under CAA section 307(d)(3)
to provide to the public a meaningful ``summary'' of ``the factual
data on which the proposed rule is based'' and ``the major legal
interpretations and policy considerations underlying the proposed
rule''--may EPA propose a FIP for any state that has been determined
to lack that authority. (Emphasis in original.)

    We disagree with this comment. The preamble for the FIP proposal
included the CAA section 307(d)(3)-required ``summary'' of the factual
basis and legal interpretations. To reiterate, EPA identified the
states for which EPA was proposing the FIP, 75 FR at 53886 and table
II-1 and 53889/1, and added that EPA would subject other states to the
FIP if they, too, became subject to the SIP call, id. 53886 and table
II-2 and 53889/2; described the timing for the FIP, id. 53889/2-3;
described the substance of the FIP, id. 53889/3-53890/1; and explained
that CAA section 110(c)(1) provided the legal basis, id. 53889/2. The
purpose of the CAA section 307(d)(3) requirements is to provide the
public with adequate notice, and these statements did so by making
clear the circumstances under which EPA was proposing to promulgate a
FIP and the timing and substance of the proposed FIP.
    It is true that for any state, whether and when EPA would finalize
the FIP for any state depended on other factors, including whether EPA
would finalize the SIP Call for that state, what deadline EPA would
establish, and whether the state would submit its required corrective
SIP revision by that deadline. But the FIP proposal put the public on
notice, with sufficient specificity, as to EPA's plan. In any event,
any FIP is necessarily dependent on other factors, including state
actions, including submission of a revised SIP. Most broadly,
commenters' approach--which is that EPA cannot propose a FIP in concert
with a SIP call, but instead must proceed in seriatim by completing the
SIP call first and then proposing the FIP--would result in lengthy
delays in the establishment of a permitting authority to process GHG-
emitting sources' PSD permit applications. As a result, commenters'
approach could well cause delays in these sources' ability to undertake
construction and modification projects.
    We included related comments and responses in the Response to
Comments document for the seven-state FIP issued on December 30,
2010,\10\ which is applicable to this rule as well.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The Response to Comments document for the seven-state FIP
can be found in the docket for this rulemaking at EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-
0107-0157.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Substance of GHG PSD FIP

    In the FIP proposal, we stated:

    The proposed FIP constitutes the EPA regulations found in 40 CFR
52.21, including the PSD applicability provisions, with a limitation
to assure that, strictly for purposes of this rulemaking, the FIP
applies only to GHGs. Under the PSD applicability provisions in 40
CFR 52.21(b)(50), the PSD program applies to sources that emit the
requisite amounts of any ``regulated NSR pollutant[s],'' including
any air pollutant ``subject to regulation.'' However, in states for
which EPA would promulgate a FIP to apply PSD to GHG-emitting
pollutants, the approved SIP already applies PSD to other air
pollutants. To appropriately limit the scope of the FIP, EPA
proposes in this action to amend 40 CFR 52.21(b)(50) to limit the
applicability provision to GHGs.
    We propose this FIP because it would, to the greatest extent
possible, mirror EPA regulations (as well as those of most of the
states). In addition, this FIP would readily incorporate the phase-
in approach for PSD applicability to GHG sources that EPA has
developed in the Tailoring Rule and expects to develop further
through additional rulemaking. As explained in the Tailoring Rule,
incorporating this phase-in approach--including Steps 1 and 2 of the
phase-in as promulgated in the Tailoring Rule--can be most readily
accomplished through interpretation of the terms in the definition
``regulated NSR pollutant,'' including the term ``subject to
regulation.''
    In accordance with the Tailoring Rule, * * * the FIP would apply
in Step 1 of the phase-in approach only to ``anyway sources'' (that
is, sources undertaking construction or modification projects that
are required to apply for PSD permits anyway due to their non-GHG
emissions and that emit GHGs in the amount of at least 75,000 tpy on
a CO2e basis) and would apply in Step 2 of the phase-in
approach to both ``anyway sources'' and sources that meet the
100,000/75,000-tpy threshold (that is, (i) sources that newly
construct and would not be subject to PSD on account of their non-
GHG emissions, but that emit GHGs in the amount of at least 100,000
tpy CO2e, and (ii) existing sources that emit GHGs in the
amount of at least 100,000 tpy CO2e, that undertake
modifications that would not trigger PSD on

the basis of their non-GHG emissions, but that increase GHGs by at
least 75,000 tpy CO2e).
    Under the FIP, with respect to permits for ``anyway sources,''
EPA will be responsible for acting on permit applications for only
the GHG portion of the permit, and the state will retain
responsibility for the rest of the permit. Likewise, with respect to
permits for sources that meet the 100,000/75,000-tpy threshold, our
preferred approach--for reasons of consistency--is that EPA will be
responsible for acting on permit applications for only the GHG
portion of the permit, that the state permitting authorities will be
responsible for the non-GHG portion of the permit, and EPA will
coordinate with the state permitting authority as needed in order to
fully cover any non-GHG emissions that, for example, are subject to
BACT because they exceed the significance levels. We recognize that
questions may arise as to whether the state permitting authorities
have authority to permit non-GHG emissions; as a result, we solicit
comment on whether EPA should also be the permitting authority for
the non-GHG portion of the permit for these latter sources.
    We propose that the FIP consist of the regulatory provisions
included in 40 CFR 52.21, except that the applicability provision
would include a limitation so that it applies for purposes of this
rulemaking only to GHGs.

75 FR 53889/3 to 53,890/1

    We are finalizing the FIP as we described it in the proposal, for
the same reasons that we indicated in the proposal, all as quoted
earlier in this preamble.
    State, industry, and environmental commenters questioned how having
EPA issue the GHG portions of a permit while allowing states under a
FIP to continue to be responsible for issuing the non-GHG portions of a
PSD permit will work in practice. Commenters raised concerns about the
potential for a source to be ``faced with conflicting requirements and
the need to mediate among permit engineers making BACT decisions.''
    We appreciate the commenters' concern. We well recognize that
dividing permitting responsibilities between two authorities--EPA for
GHGs and the state for all other pollutants--will require close
coordination between the two authorities to avoid duplication,
conflicting determinations, and delays. We note that this situation is
not without precedent. In many instances in the past, EPA has been the
PSD permitting authority but the state has accepted a delegation for
parts of the PSD program, so that a source has had to go to both the
state and EPA for its permit. In addition, all nonattainment areas in
the nation are in attainment or are unclassifiable for at least one
pollutant, so that every nonattainment area is also a PSD area. In some
of these areas, the state is the permitting authority for nonattainment
new source review (NSR) and EPA is the permitting authority for PSD. As
a result, there are instances in which a new or modifying source in
such an area has needed a nonattainment NSR permit from the state and a
PSD permit from EPA.
    EPA is working expeditiously to develop recommended approaches for
EPA regions and affected states--including Jefferson County, Kentucky--
to use in addressing the shared responsibility of issuing PSD permits
for GHG-emitting sources. In addition, as discussed below, we intend
for the GHG PSD FIP to remain in place only as long as necessary for
states' SIPs to be approved. Moreover, in this interim period, we
intend to delegate permitting responsibility to those states that are
able to implement it and that request it. States that request and
receive a delegation will be responsible for issuing both the GHG part
and the non-GHG part of the permit, and that will moot commenters'
concerns about split permitting.

D. Period for GHG PSD FIP To Remain in Place

    In the FIP proposal, we stated our intention to leave any
promulgated FIP in place for as short a period as possible, and to
process any corrective SIP revision submitted by the state to fulfill
the requirements of the SIP call as expeditiously as possible.
Specifically, we stated:

    After we have promulgated a FIP, it must remain in place until
the state submits a SIP revision and we approve that SIP revision.
CAA section 110(c)(1). Under the present circumstances, we will act
on a SIP revision to apply the PSD program to GHG sources as quickly
as possible. Upon request of the state, we will parallel-process the
SIP submittal. That is, if the state submits to us the draft SIP
submittal for which the state intends to hold a hearing, we will
propose the draft SIP submittal for approval and open a comment
period during the same time as the state hearing. If the SIP
submittal that the state ultimately submits to us is substantially
similar to the draft SIP submittal, we will proceed to take final
action without a further proposal or comment period. If we approve
such a SIP revision, we will at the same time rescind the FIP.

75 FR 53889/2-3.

    We continue to have these same intentions. Thus, we reaffirm our
intention to leave this GHG PSD FIP in place only as long as is
necessary for the LMAPCD to submit and for EPA to approve a SIP
revision that includes PSD permitting for GHG-emitting sources. As
discussed in more detail later in this preamble, EPA continues to
believe that the states should remain the primary permitting authority.

E. Primacy of SIP Process

    In the FIP proposal we stated,

    This proposal [to promulgate a FIP] is secondary to our
overarching goal, which is to assure that in every instance, it will
be the state that will be that permitting authority. EPA continues
to recognize that the states are best suited to the task of
permitting because they and their sources have experience working
together in the state PSD program to process permit applications.
EPA seeks to remain solely in its primary role of providing guidance
and acting as a resource for the states as they make the various
required permitting decisions for GHG emissions.
    Accordingly, beginning immediately we intend to work closely
with the states--as we have already begun to do since earlier in the
year--to help them promptly develop and submit to us their
corrective SIP revisions that extend their PSD program to GHG-
emitting sources. Moreover, we intend to promptly act on their SIP
submittals. Again, EPA's goal is to have each and every affected
state have in place the necessary permitting authorities by the time
businesses seeking construction permits need to have their
applications processed and the permits issued--and to achieve that
outcome by means of engaging with the states directly through a
concerted process of consultation and support.
    EPA is taking up the additional task of proposing this FIP and
the companion SIP Call action only because the Agency believes it is
compelled to do so by the need to assure businesses, to the maximum
extent possible and as promptly as possible, that a permitting
authority is available to process PSD permit applications for GHG-
emitting sources once they become subject to PSD requirements on
January 2, 2011.
    In order to provide that assurance, we are obligated to
recognize, as both states and the regulated community already do,
that there may be circumstances in which states are simply unable to
develop and submit those SIP revisions by January 2, 2011, or for
some period of time beyond that date. As a result, absent further
action by EPA, those states' affected sources confront the risk that
they may have to put on hold their plans to construct or modify, a
risk that may have adverse consequences for the economy.
    Given these exigent circumstances, EPA proposes this plan,
within the limits of our power, with the intent to make a back-up
permitting authority available--and to send a signal of assurance
expeditiously in order to reduce uncertainty and thus facilitate
businesses' planning. Within the design of the CAA, it is EPA that
must fill that role of back-up permitting authority. This FIP and
the companion SIP Call action fulfill the CAA requirements to
establish EPA in that role.
    At the same time, we propose these actions with the intent that
states retain as much discretion as possible in the hand of the
states. In the SIP Call rulemaking, EPA proposes that states may
choose the deadline they consider reasonable for submission of

their corrective SIP revision. If, under CAA requirements, we are
compelled to promulgate a FIP, we invite the affected state to
accept a delegation of authority to implement that FIP, so that it
will still be the state that processes the permit applications,
albeit operating under federal law. In addition, if we are compelled
to issue a FIP, we intend to continue to work closely with the state
to assist in developing and submitting for approval its corrective
SIP revision, so as to minimize the amount of time that the FIP must
remain in place.

75 FR at 53890/1-2.
    In this rulemaking, we continue to have the same intentions and for
the same reasons. Thus, we continue to believe that this action is
necessary to ensure that sources in states with inadequate SIPs can
obtain the necessary PSD permits for their GHG emissions. We have
worked closely with states to establish reasonable deadlines for
submitting revised SIPs and are finalizing this FIP based on the
deadline agreed to by the LMAPCD. We will continue to work with states,
including the LMAPCD, as we have done throughout the rulemaking
process, to assist in development and expedite review of revised SIPs.
In the meantime, however, this FIP is necessary for Jefferson County,
Kentucky in order to provide a permitting authority until an adequate
SIP is submitted and approved.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866--Regulatory Planning and Review

    This action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under the
terms of Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and
is therefore not subject to review under the EO.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden.
However, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has previously
approved the information collection requirements contained in the
existing regulations for PSD (see, e.g., 40 CFR 52.21) and title V (see
40 CFR parts 70 and 71) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction
Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB control number 2060-
0003 and OMB control number 2060-0336 respectively. The OMB control
numbers for EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of this notice on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that is a
small industrial entity as defined in the U.S. Small Business
Administration (SBA) size standards (see 13 CFR 121.201); (2) a small
governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town,
school district, or special district with a population of less than
50,000; or (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise that is independently owned and operated and is not dominant
in its field.
    Although this rule would lead to federal permitting requirements
for certain sources, those sources are large emitters of GHGs and tend
to be large sources. After considering the economic impacts of this
rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
This final rule will not impose any requirements on small entities.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This action contains no federal mandates under the provisions of
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA, 2 U.S.C.
1531-1538) for state, local or tribal governments or the private
section. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local or
tribal governments or the private sector. This action merely prescribes
EPA's action for an area that did not meet its existing obligation for
PSD SIP submittal. Thus, this rule is not subject to the requirements
of sections 202 or 205 of UMRA.
    This action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203
of UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action merely
prescribes EPA's action for an area that did not meet its existing
obligation for PSD SIP submittal.

E. Executive Order 13132--Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as
specified in Executive Order 13132. This action merely prescribes EPA's
action for an area that did not meet its existing obligation for GHG
PSD SIP submittal. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this
action.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and state and local
governments, EPA specifically solicited comment on the proposal for
this action from state and local officials.

F. Executive Order 13175--Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action does
not impose a FIP in any tribal area. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does
not apply to this action.

G. Executive Order 13045--Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying
only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks,
such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the EO has the
potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to EO
13045 because it merely prescribes EPA's action for an area that did
not meet its existing obligation for PSD SIP submittal.

H. Executive Order 13211--Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined in
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy. This action merely prescribes EPA's
action for an area that did not meet its existing obligation for PSD
SIP submittal.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards

bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB,
explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and
applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore,
EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

J. Executive Order 12898--Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

    Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes
federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
    EPA has determined that this final rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority or low-income populations because it does not
affect the level of protection provided to human health or the
environment. This rule merely prescribes EPA's action for an area that
did not meet its existing obligation for PSD SIP submittal.

K. Determination Under Section 307(d)

    Pursuant to section 307(d)(1)(B) of the CAA, this action is subject
to the provisions of section 307(d). Section 307(d)(1)(B) provides that
the provisions of section 307(d) apply to ``the promulgation or
revision of an implementation plan by the Administrator under section
110(c) of this Act.''

L. Congressional Review Act

    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 rule 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 does not constitute a ``major rule'' as defined
by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Therefore, this action will be effective January
14, 2011.

V. Judicial Review

    Section 307(b)(1) of the CAA specifies which Federal Courts of
Appeal have jurisdiction to hear petitions for review of which final
actions by EPA. This section provides, in part, that petitions for
review must be filed in the Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit: (i) When the agency action consists of ``nationally
applicable regulations promulgated, or final actions taken, by the
Administrator,'' or (ii) when such action is locally or regionally
applicable, if ``such action is based on a determination of nationwide
scope or effect and if in taking such action the Administrator finds
and publishes that such action is based on such a determination.''
    This rule is nationally applicable under CAA section 307(b)(1). It
is merely the next step in the suite of rules addressing inadequacies
in SIPs related to 13 states' failure to apply PSD to GHG-emitting
sources as the SIP Call, the Finding of Failure to Submit issued on
December 29, 2010, and the FIP rule issued on December 30, 2010. In
particular, this rule simply follows-up on the FIP rule issued on
December 30, 2010, which affected seven states that chose the earliest
possible deadline, and takes the identical next step for Jefferson
County now that this area, too, has missed its SIP Call deadline and is
subject to a Finding of Failure to Submit, and FIP. The circumstances
that have led to this rulemaking are national in scope and are
substantially the same for Jefferson County, Kentucky as they were for
each of the seven affected states in the earlier FIP rule issued on
December 30, 2010. They include EPA's promulgation of nationally
applicable GHG requirements that, in conjunction with the operation of
the CAA PSD provisions, have resulted in GHG-emitting sources becoming
subject to PSD; as well as EPA's finding of substantial SIP inadequacy,
imposition of a SIP call, and establishment of a deadline for SIP
submittal. Moreover, in this rule, EPA is applying the same uniform
principles for promulgating the FIP for Jefferson County, Kentucky as
it did for each of the seven earlier-affected states, concerning, e.g.,
timing (that is, that EPA is promulgating the FIP for each affected
state immediately) and scope (that is, that EPA is applying the FIP for
GHG-emitting sources). The FIP for Jefferson County has substantially
the same, if not identical, terms as the FIP for each affected state in
the December 30, 2010 rule. This rulemaking action is supported by the
same single administrative record as the earlier December 30, 2010 FIP
rule, and does not involve factual questions unique to Jefferson
County, Kentucky or the LMAPCD. In addition, as stated above, this rule
is part of a single approach to correcting certain inadequacies in SIPs
in multiple States across the country, and in several judicial
circuits.
    For similar reasons, this rule is based on determinations of
nationwide scope or effect. For Jefferson County, Kentucky, EPA is
determining that it is appropriate to promulgate the FIP immediately
and to apply it to GHG-emitting sources, but not other sources, in the
same way it made the same determination for the seven other states in
the earlier December 30, 2010 FIP rule. These determinations are the
same for each of the states. The provisions of this FIP are also
substantially the same, if not identical, to those for the seven
earlier affected states. Moreover, EPA is making these determinations
and promulgating this action within the context of nationwide
rulemakings and interpretation of the applicable CAA provisions, as
noted above.
    Thus, under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, judicial review of this
final action is available by filing of a petition for review in the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by March 15,
2011. Any such judicial review is limited to only those objections that
were raised with reasonable specificity in timely comments. Under
section 307(b)(2) of the Act, the requirements of this final action may
not be challenged later in civil or criminal proceedings brought by us
to enforce these requirements.

VI. Statutory Authority

    The statutory authority for this action is provided by sections
110, 165, 301, and 307(d)(1)(B) of the CAA as amended (42 U.S.C. 7410,
7475, 7601, and 7407(d)(1)(B)). This action is subject to section
307(d) of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7407(d)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Air pollution control, Carbon dioxide, Carbon dioxide equivalents,
Carbon monoxide, Environmental protection, Greenhouse gases,
Hydrofluorocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental
relations, Lead, Methane, Nitrogen dioxide, Nitrous oxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Perfluorocarbons, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur

hexafluoride, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: January 10, 2011.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.
    For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations is revised as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. Section 52.37 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(6) and adding
paragraph (b)(7) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.37  What are the requirements of the Federal Implementation
plans (FIPs) to issue permits under the Prevention of Significant
Deterioration requirements to sources that emit greenhouse gases?

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (6) Wyoming;
    (7) Jefferson County, Kentucky.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2011-768 Filed 1-13-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 40 (Friday, February 28, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11982-11983]
[FR Doc No: 2020-04127]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings #1

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:

    Docket Numbers: ER19-828-001; ER11-4535-001; ER16-2271-002; ER16-
581-003; ER16-582-003; ER17-1370-002.
    Applicants: Solomon Forks Wind Project, LLC, ENGIE Energy Marketing
NA, Inc., ENGIE Portfolio Management, LLC, ENGIE Resources LLC, ENGIE
Retail, LLC, Plymouth Rock Energy, LLC.
    Description: Notice of Change in Status of the ENGIE MBR Sellers.
    Filed Date: 2/21/20.
    Accession Number: 20200221-5218.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/13/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-2276-003.
    Applicants: New York Independent System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Compliance filing: Compliance re: 1/23/20 Order
Distributed Energy Resourcess to be effective 12/31/9998.
    Filed Date: 2/24/20.
    Accession Number: 20200224-5087.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/16/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-2747-002.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: 3593 Frontier Windpower II GIA--
Deficiency Response to be effective 8/23/2019.
    Filed Date: 2/24/20.
    Accession Number: 20200224-5010.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/16/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-2748-002.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: 3595 Skeleton Creek Wind, LLC GIA--
Deficiency Response to be effective 8/23/2019.
    Filed Date: 2/24/20.
    Accession Number: 20200224-5015.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/16/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-2773-002.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: 3594 Wheatbelt Wind, LLC GIA--
Deficiency Response to be effective 8/23/2019.
    Filed Date: 2/24/20.
    Accession Number: 20200224-5030.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/16/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER19-2813-002.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Tariff Amendment: 3597SO Chilocco Wind Farm GIA--
Deficiency Response to be effective 9/6/2019.
    Filed Date: 2/24/20.
    Accession Number: 20200224-5031.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/16/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-807-000.
    Applicants: Ruff Solar LLC.
    Description: Supplement to January 15, 2020 Ruff Solar LLC tariff
filing.
    Filed Date: 2/24/20.
    Accession Number: 20200224-5033.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/16/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1059-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Western Energy Imbalance
Service Tariff to be effective 2/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 2/21/20.
    Accession Number: 20200221-5114.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/13/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1060-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Western Energy Imbalance
Service Rate Schedule Tariff to be effective 2/1/2021.
    Filed Date: 2/21/20.
    Accession Number: 20200221-5118.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/13/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1061-000.
    Applicants: Turquoise Nevada LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Turquoise Nevada LLC First
Amendment to Shared Facilities Agreement to be effective 2/22/2020.
    Filed Date: 2/21/20.
    Accession Number: 20200221-5135.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/13/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1062-000.
    Applicants: Garden Wind, LLC.
    Description: Baseline eTariff Filing: Reactive Power Compensation
Filing to be effective 4/24/2020.
    Filed Date: 2/24/20.
    Accession Number: 20200224-5009.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/16/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1065-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Amendment to WMPA, SA No.
3255; Queue No. W4-073 (consent and amend) to be effective 11/2/2016.
    Filed Date: 2/24/20.
    Accession Number: 20200224-5056.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/16/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1066-000.
    Applicants: AEP Texas Inc.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: AEPTX--Monte Alto Windpower
GIA to be effective 2/13/2020.
    Filed Date: 2/24/20.
    Accession Number: 20200224-5063.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/16/20.

    Docket Numbers: ER20-1067-000.
    Applicants: Diamond State Generation Partners, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  205(d) Rate Filing: Amendment of Diamond State
MBR Tariff to be effective 2/25/2020.
    Filed Date: 2/24/20.
    Accession Number: 20200224-5088.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/16/20.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
securities filings:

    Docket Numbers: ES20-17-000.
    Applicants: Trans Bay Cable LLC.
    Description: Application Under Section 204 of the Federal Power Act
for Authorization to Issue Securities of Trans Bay Cable LLC.

    Filed Date: 2/21/20.
    Accession Number: 20200221-5223.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/13/20.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following foreign
utility company status filings:

    Docket Numbers: FC20-4-000.
    Applicants: Energy Center Caguas LLC.
    Description: Notice of Self-Certification of Foreign Utility
Company Status.
    Filed Date: 2/21/20.
    Accession Number: 20200221-5136.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/13/20.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
reliability filings:

    Docket Numbers: RD20-4-000.
    Applicants: North American Electric Reliability Corporation.
    Description: Application of the North American Electric Reliability
Corporation for approval of proposed Reliability Standards developed
Standards Alignment with Registration.
    Filed Date: 2/21/20.
    Accession Number: 20200221-5221.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 3/23/20.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
clicking on the links or querying the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER>
(toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

    Dated: February 24, 2020.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2020-04127 Filed 2-27-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 184 (Monday, September 25, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Page 44647]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20454]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4325-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2017-0001]

Nebraska; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Nebraska (FEMA-4325-DR), dated August 1, 2017, and
related determinations.

DATES: The amendment was issued on September 8, 2017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) hereby gives notice that pursuant to the authority vested in the
Administrator, under Executive Order 12148, as amended, Michael R.
Scott, of FEMA is appointed to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer
for this disaster.
    This action terminates the appointment of Dolph A. Diemont as
Federal Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA)
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling;
97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048,
Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In
Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially
Declared Disaster Assistance--Disaster Housing Operations for
Individuals and Households; 97.050, Presidentially Declared Disaster
Assistance to Individuals and Households--Other Needs; 97.036,
Disaster Grants--Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared
Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Brock Long,
Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2017-20454 Filed 9-22-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register: January 13, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 8)]
[Notices]
[Page 1764-1765]
[DOCID:fr13ja10-45]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

January 4, 2010.
    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
    Docket Numbers: RP10-269-000.
    Applicants: Rockies Express Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Rockies Express Pipeline LLC submits Original Sheet
No. 11C to FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1.
    Filed Date: 12/28/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091229-0057.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, January 11, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-270-000.
    Applicants: Discovery Gas Transmission LLC,
    Description: Discovery Gas Transmission LLC submits for filing its
Fourth Revised Sheet 23, to become effective 5/1/09.
    Filed Date: 12/29/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091230-0050.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, January 11, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-271-000.
    Applicants: Southern LNG Inc.
    Description: Southern LNG, Inc submits for filing Third Revised
Sheet 1 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume 1 to become
effective 3/1/10.
    Filed Date: 12/29/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091230-0051.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, January 11, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-272-000.
    Applicants: Millennium Pipeline Company, LLC.
    Description: Millennium Pipeline Company, LLC submits Third Revised
Sheet 51 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 12/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091230-0049.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, January 11, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-273-000.
    Applicants: EnergyMark, LLC.
    Description: Constellation NewEnergy--Gas Division, LLC et al.
submits request for a temporary waiver of FERC's capacity release
policies and regulations in order facilitate the acquisition.
    Filed Date: 12/29/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091230-0048.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m.Eastern Time on Monday, January 11, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-274-000.
    Applicants: Wyoming Interstate Company.

    Description: Wyoming Interstate Company, Ltd submits for filing and
acceptance a Fourteenth Revised Sheet 1 to its FERC Gas Tariff, Second
Revised Volume 2.
    Filed Date: 12/29/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091230-0047.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, January 11, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-275-000.
    Applicants: Wyoming Interstate Company, Ltd.
    Description: Wyoming Interstate Company, Ltd submits for filing and
acceptance a firm transportation service agreement with Devon Energy
Production Company, LP.
    Filed Date: 12/29/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091230-0046.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, January 11, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-276-000.
    Applicants: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P.
    Description: Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P. Measurement
Variance/Fuel Use Factors utilized by Iroquois during July 1, 2009-
December 31, 2009.
    Filed Date: 12/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091230-5088.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, January 11, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-277-000.
    Applicants: National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation.
    Description: National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation submits Non-
conforming Service Agreements to FERC Gas Tariff, Fourth Revised Volume
2 with Crown Energy Services, Inc et al., effective 1/29/10.
    Filed Date: 12/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091231-0024.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, January 11, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-278-000.
    Applicants: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP
    Description: Texas Eastern Transmission, LP submits Thirty-Third
Revised Sheet 25 et al., to FERC Gas Tariff, Seventh Revised Volume 1
and First Revised Volume 2, to be effective 2/1/10.
    Filed Date: 12/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091231-0025.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, January 11, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-279-000.
    Applicants: Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC.
    Description: Florida Gas Transmission Company, LLC submits the
Annual Accounting Report which details the activity of FGT's Cash-Out
Mechanism.
    Filed Date: 12/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091231-0026.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, January 11, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-280-000.
    Applicants: Rockies Express Pipeline LLC.
    Description: Rockies Express Pipeline, LLC submits Original Sheet
11D to FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume 1, to be effective 1/1/
10.
    Filed Date: 12/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091231-0027.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, January 11, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-281-000.
    Applicants: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP.
    Description: Gulf South Pipeline Company, LP submits amendment to a
negotiated rate letter agreement re the East Texas to Mississippi
Expansion Project.
    Filed Date: 12/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091231-0028.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, January 11, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-282-000.
    Applicants: Kinder Morgan Interstate Gas Trans. LLC.
    Description: Kinder Morgan Interstate Gas Transmission, LLC submits
Twenty Sixth Revised Sheet 4G.01 et al. to FERC Gas Tariff, Fourth
Revised Volume 1A, to be effective 1/1/10.
    Filed Date: 12/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091231-0029.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, January 11, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-283-000.
    Applicants: Northern Natural Gas Company.
    Description: Northern Natural Gas Company submits 14 Revised Sheet
66B.35 to FERC Gas Tariff, Fifth Revised Volume 1, to be effective 1/1/
10.
    Filed Date: 12/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091231-0030.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, January 11, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-284-000.
    Applicants: Millennium Pipeline Company, LLC.
    Description: Millennium Pipeline Company, LLC submits the Penalty
Revenue Crediting Report to FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 12/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091231-0031.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, January 11, 2010.

    Docket Numbers: RP10-285-000.
    Applicants: Sea Robin Pipeline Company, LLC.
    Description: Sea Robin Pipeline Company, LLC submits the Annual
Flowthrough Crediting Mechanism to FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised
Volume 1.
    Filed Date: 12/30/2009.
    Accession Number: 20091231-0032.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, January 11, 2010.

    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. 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. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also 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 e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with
any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or
call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-463 Filed 1-12-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 97 (Tuesday, May 20, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 28928]
[FR Doc No: 2014-11521]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2012-E-1226]

Determination of Regulatory Review Period for Purposes of Patent
Extension; PICATO

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has determined the
regulatory review period for PICATO and is publishing this notice of
that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination
because of the submission of an application to the Director of Patents
and Trademarks, Department of Commerce, for the extension of a patent
which claims that human drug product.

ADDRESSES: Submit electronic comments to http://www.regulations.gov.
Submit written petitions (two copies are required) and written comments
to the Division of Dockets Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
Submit petitions electronically to http://www.regulations.gov at Docket
No. FDA-2013-S-0610.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beverly Friedman, Office of
Management, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave.,
Bldg. 51, Rm. 6257, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term
Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug
and Patent Term Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide
that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as
the patented item (human drug product, animal drug product, medical
device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory
review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a
product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the
amount of extension an applicant may receive.
    A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: A
testing phase and an approval phase. For human drug products, the
testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical
investigations of the drug becomes effective and runs until the
approval phase begins. The approval phase starts with the initial
submission of an application to market the human drug product and
continues until FDA grants permission to market the drug product.
Although only a portion of a regulatory review period may count toward
the actual amount of extension that the Director of Patents and
Trademarks may award (for example, half the testing phase must be
subtracted as well as any time that may have occurred before the patent
was issued), FDA's determination of the length of a regulatory review
period for a human drug product will include all of the testing phase
and approval phase as specified in 35 U.S.C. 156(g)(1)(B).
    FDA has approved for marketing the human drug product PICATO
(ingenol mebutate). PICATO is indicated for the topical treatment of
actinic keratosis. Subsequent to this approval, the Patent and
Trademark Office received a patent term restoration application for
PICATO (U.S. Patent No. 7,410,656) from Leo Laboratories Ltd., and the
Patent and Trademark Office requested FDA's assistance in determining
this patent's eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter
dated February 22, 2013, FDA advised the Patent and Trademark Office
that this human drug product had undergone a regulatory review period
and that the approval of PICATO represented the first permitted
commercial marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the Patent and
Trademark Office requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory
review period.
    FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for
PICATO is 2,737 days. Of this time, 2,432 days occurred during the
testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 305 days occurred
during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the
following dates:
    1. The date an exemption under section 505(i) of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 355(i)) became
effective: July 28, 2004. The applicant claims July 9, 2004, as the
date the investigational new drug application (IND) became effective.
However, FDA records indicate that the IND effective date was July 28,
2004, which was 30 days after FDA receipt of the IND.
    2. The date the application was initially submitted with respect to
the human drug product under section 505(b) of the FD&C Act: March 25,
2011. FDA has verified the applicant's claim that the new drug
application (NDA) for Picato (NDA 202833) was submitted on March 25,
2011.
    3. The date the application was approved: January 23, 2012. FDA has
verified the applicant's claim that NDA 202833 was approved on January
23, 2012.
    This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the
maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the Patent and
Trademark Office applies several statutory limitations in its
calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its
application for patent extension, this applicant seeks 783 days of
patent term extension.
    Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are
incorrect may submit to the Division of Dockets Management (see
ADDRESSES) either electronic or written comments and ask for a
redetermination by July 21, 2014. Furthermore, any interested person
may petition FDA for a determination regarding whether the applicant
for extension acted with due diligence during the regulatory review
period by November 17, 2014. To meet its burden, the petition must
contain sufficient facts to merit an FDA investigation. (See H. Rept.
857, part 1, 98th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 41-42, 1984.) Petitions should
be in the format specified in 21 CFR 10.30.
    Interested persons may submit to the Division of Dockets Management
(see ADDRESSES) electronic or written comments and written or
electronic petitions. It is only necessary to send one set of comments.
Identify comments with the docket number found in brackets in the
heading of this document. If you submit a written petition, two copies
are required. A petition submitted electronically must be submitted to
http://www.regulations.gov, Docket No. FDA-2013-S-0610. Comments and
petitions that have not been made publicly available on http://www.regulations.gov may be viewed in the Division of Dockets Management
between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

    Dated: May 14, 2014.
Leslie Kux,
Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-11521 Filed 5-19-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 47 (Thursday, March 10, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12780-12781]
[FR Doc No: 2016-05371]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

[Docket No. NHTSA-2016-0026]

Notice of Buy America Waiver

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice of Buy America waiver.

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

SUMMARY: This notice provides NHTSA's finding with respect to a request
to waive the requirements of Buy America from the Maine Bureau of
Highway Safety (MBHS). NHTSA finds that a non-availability waiver of
the Buy America requirement is appropriate for the purchase of a Leica
total station using Federal highway traffic safety grant funds because
there are no suitable products produced in the United States.

DATES: The effective date of this waiver is March 25, 2016. Written
comments regarding this notice may be submitted to NHTSA and must be
received on or before: March 25, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Written comments may be submitted using any one of the
following methods:
     Mail: Docket Management Facility, M-30, U.S. Department of
Transportation, West Building, Ground Floor, Rm. W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Fax: Written comments may be faxed to<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Internet: To submit comments electronically, go to the
Federal regulations Web site at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions for submitting comments.
     Hand Delivery: West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140,
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    Instructions: All comments submitted in relation to this waiver
must include the agency name and docket number. Please note that all
comments received will be posted without change to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. You
may also call the Docket at<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  For program issues, contact Barbara
Sauers, Office of Regional Operations and Program Delivery, NHTSA
(phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>). For legal issues, contact Andrew DiMarsico,
Office of Chief Counsel, NHTSA (phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>). You may send mail
to these officials at the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  This notice provides NHTSA's finding that a
waiver of the Buy America requirement, 23 U.S.C. 313, is appropriate
for MBHS to purchase a Leica Flexline TS02 Plus R500 Reflectorless
Total Station for $12,925 using grant funds authorized under 23 U.S.C.
402. Section 402 funds are available for use by state highway safety
programs that, among other things, reduce or prevent injuries and
deaths resulting from speeding motor vehicles, driving while impaired
by alcohol and or drugs, motorcycle accidents, school bus accidents,
and unsafe driving behavior. 23 U.S.C. 402(a). Section 402 funds are
also available to state programs that encourage the proper use of
occupant protection devices and improve law enforcement services in
motor vehicle accident prevention, traffic supervision, and post-
accident procedures. Id.
    Buy America provides that NHTSA ``shall not obligate any funds
authorized to be appropriated to carry out the Surface Transportation
Assistance Act of 1982 (96 Stat. 2097) or [Title 23] and administered
by the Department of Transportation, unless steel, iron, and
manufactured products used in such project are produced in the United
States.'' 23 U.S.C. 313. However, NHTSA may waive those requirements if
``(1) their application would be inconsistent with the public interest;
(2) such materials and products are not produced in the United States
in sufficient and reasonably available quantities and of a satisfactory
quality; or (3) the inclusion of domestic material will increase the
cost of the overall project contract by more than 25 percent.'' 23
U.S.C. 313(b); 49 CFR 1.95(f).
    MBHS seeks a waiver to purchase one (1) Leica Flexline TS02 Plus
R500 Reflectorless total station for its subgrantee, the Maine State
Police, using Federal grant funds, at a cost of $12,925. A total
station is an electronic/optical instrument used in modern surveying
and accident reconstruction. Specifically, a total station is an
electronic theodolite integrated with an electronic distance meter to
read slope distances from the instrument to a particular point.
According to MBHS, the total station provides law enforcement with the
equipment necessary to provide accurate and detailed crash
reconstruction to aid in improving highway safety and for use with the
enforcement of traffic safety laws. MBHS states that the total station
reduces the time officers need to stand in the roadway with a prism to
mark evidence at crash scenes. In addition, with a total station,
evidence can be plotted from the side of the road after a roadway has
been opened to traffic.
    MBHS states that there are no total station models that are
manufactured or assembled in the United States. In support of its
waiver, MBHS cites to NHTSA's determination that a Buy America waiver
was appropriate for the North Carolina Highway Safety Office to
purchase a Nikon Nivo 5M plus Reflectorless total station. See 80 FR
72480 (November 19, 2015). In that notice, the agency noted that both
North Carolina and NHTSA performed market analyses which revealed that
all total station equipment are foreign made.\1\ Id. at 72481. At this
time, the agency is unaware of any total stations produced
domestically.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In our November 19, 2015 notice, we noted that the combined
market research of North Carolina and NHTSA found that the following
manufacturers produced foreign made total stations: CT Berger
(China); Leica (Switzerland); Leica Flexline TS02 Plus R500
Reflectorless Total Station (Japan); Spectra Precision (Japan);
Northwest Instruments (China); Topcon (Japan); Trimble (Sweden); Hi-
Target Instrument Surveying Co. Ltd. (China); geo-Fennel GmbH
(Germany); Hilti (Liechtenstein); North Surveying (Spain); South
Precision Instrument (China); Ruide Surveying Instrument Co.
(China); Pentex (Japan/China); and Topcon (Japan, China and
Thailand).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    NHTSA agrees that the total stations advance the purpose of section
402 to improve law enforcement services in motor vehicle accident
prevention and post-accident reconstruction and enforcement. A total
station is an on-

scene reconstruction tool that assists in the determination of the
cause of the crash and can support crash investigations. It is an
electronic/optical instrument that specializes in surveying with tools
to provide precise measurements for diagraming crash scenes, including
a laser range finder and a computer to assist law enforcement to
determine post-accident reconstruction. The total station system is
designed to gather evidence of the events leading up to, during and
following a crash. These tools are used to gather evidence to determine
such facts as minimum speed at the time of a crash, the critical speed
of a roadway curve, the distance a vehicle may have traveled when out
of control and other factors that involve a crash investigation. In
some instances, the facts collected through the use of a total station
are used to form a basis of a criminal charge or evidence in a criminal
prosecution.
    Based upon our recent market analysis, we are unaware of any total
station equipment that is manufactured domestically. Ibid. Since a
total station is unavailable from a domestic manufacturer and the
equipment would assist in post-accident reconstruction and enforcement
to advance the purpose of 23 U.S.C. 402, a Buy America waiver is
appropriate. NHTSA invites public comment on this conclusion.
    In light of the above discussion, and pursuant to 23 U.S.C.
313(b)(2), NHTSA finds that it is appropriate to grant a waiver from
the Buy America requirements to MBHS in order to purchase the Leica
total station equipment. This waiver applies to Maine and all other
states seeking to use section 402 funds to purchase Leica total
stations for the purposes mentioned herein. This waiver is effective
through fiscal year 2016 and expires at the conclusion of the fiscal
year (September 30, 2016). In accordance with the provisions of section
117 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity
Act: A Legacy of Users Technical Corrections Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110-
244, 122 Stat. 1572), NHTSA is providing this notice as its finding
that a waiver of the Buy America requirements is appropriate for the
Leica total station.
    Written comments on this finding may be submitted through any of
the methods discussed above. NHTSA may reconsider this finding if,
through comment, it learns additional relevant information regarding
its decision to grant MBHS's waiver request.
    This finding should not be construed as an endorsement or approval
of any products by NHTSA or the U.S. Department of Transportation. The
United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers.

    Authority: 23 U.S.C. 313; Pub. L. 110-161.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 4, 2016 under authority
delegated in 49 CFR part 1.95.
Paul A. Hemmersbaugh,
Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2016-05371 Filed 3-9-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 22 (Thursday, February 2, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 5186]
[FR Doc No: 2012-2284]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[Docket No. USCG-2011-1171]

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Northeast Cape Fear River,
Wilmington, NC

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of temporary deviation from regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Commander, Fifth Coast Guard District, has issued a
temporary deviation from the regulations governing the operation of the
Isabel S. Holmes Bridge across the Northeast Cape Fear River, mile 1.0,
at Wilmington, NC. The deviation restricts the operation of the draw
span to accommodate the 100 year Anniversary of the Girl Scout Program
Ceremonial walk. The deviation allows the bridge to remain in the
closed position to vessels.

DATES: This deviation is effective from 10 a.m. until noon on March 10,
2012.

ADDRESSES: Documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in
the docket USCG-2011-1171 and are available online by going to http://www.regulations.gov, inserting USCG-2011-1171 in the ``Keywords'' box,
and then clicking ``Search''. This material is also available for
inspection or copying the Docket Management Facility (M-30), U.S.
Department of Transportation, 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 FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Mr. Jim Rousseau, Bridge Management Specialist, Fifth
Coast Guard District, telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. Email
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>If you have questions on reviewing the
docket, call Renee V. Wright, Program Manager, Docket Operations, (202)
366-9826.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Event Director for the New Hanover
County Girl Scouts, with approval from the North Carolina Department of
Transportation, owner of the drawbridge, has requested a temporary
deviation from the current operating schedule to accommodate the 100
year Anniversary of the Girl Scout Program Ceremonial walk.
    The Isabel S. Holmes Bridge operating regulations are set out in 33
CFR 117.829(a). However on January 10, 2012 (77 FR 1406) the Coast
Guard granted a deviation from 33 CFR 117.829(a) to facilitate
structural repair on the bridge. Under the current operating deviation
schedule, the drawbridge will be closed to navigation from 7 a.m. on
January 16, 2012 until and including 11 p.m. on April 30, 2012; except
that vessel openings will be provided if at least three hours advance
notice is given to the bridge tender at<PHONE_NUMBER> or via marine
radio on channel 13 VHF. The Isabel S. Holmes Bridge across the
Northeast Cape Fear River, mile 1.0,a bascule lift Bridge, in
Wilmington, NC, has a vertical clearance in the closed position of 40
feet, above mean high water.
    Under this temporary deviation, the drawbridge will be allowed to
remain in the closed-to-navigation position from 10 a.m. to noon on
Saturday, March 10, 2012 to accommodate the 100 year Anniversary of the
Girl Scout Program Ceremonial walk.
    Vessels able to pass under the closed span may transit under the
drawbridge while it is in the closed position. Mariners are advised to
proceed with caution. The Coast Guard will inform users of the waterway
through our local and broadcast Notices to Mariners of the limited
operating schedule for the drawbridge so that vessels can arrange their
transits to minimize any impacts caused by the temporary deviation.
There are no alternate routes for vessels and the bridge will be able
to open in the event of an emergency.
    In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), when applicable the draw must
return to its regular operating schedule immediately at the end of the
designated time period. This deviation from the operating regulations
is authorized under 33 CFR 117.35.

    Dated: January 13, 2012.
Waverly W. Gregory, Jr.,
Bridge Program Manager, Fifth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2012-2284 Filed 2-1-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P