[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 219 (Thursday, November 13, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 67495]
[FR Doc No: 2014-26813]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-73550; File No. SR-NASDAQ-2014-034]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC;
Notice of Withdrawal of a Proposed Rule Change Relating to Proposed
Changes To Remove From the Exchange Rules Fee Provisions Regarding Re-
Transmission of ``Third-Party Data''

November 6, 2014.
    On April 7, 2014, The NASDAQ Stock Market LLC (``Nasdaq'' or the
``Exchange'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(``Commission'') pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ to
remove, from the Exchange rules, fee provisions with respect to third-
party data feeds that Nasdaq receives from multiple sources and then
re-transmits to clients in connection with the Exchange's co-location
services. The proposed rule change was published for comment in the
Federal Register on April 28, 2014.\3\ On June 5, 2014, the Commission
extended the time to act on the proposal until July 25, 2014.\4\ On
July 22, 2014, the Commission instituted proceedings to determine
whether to disapprove the proposed rule change in an order published in
the Federal Register.\5\ The Commission received no comment letters on
the proposed rule change. On October 23, 2014, the Commission extended
the time to act on the proposal until December 24, 2014.\6\ On October
24, 2014, the Exchange withdrew the proposal (SR-NASDAQ-2014-034).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4
    \3\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 71990 (April 22,
2014), 79 FR 23389 (``Notice'').
    \4\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72328, 79 FR 33605
(June 11, 2014).
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 72654, 79 FR 43808
(July 28, 2014).
    \6\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 73416, 79 FR 64444
(October 29, 2014).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-26813 Filed 11-12-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 166 (Tuesday, August 29, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59520-59521]
[FR Doc No: 2023-18593]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural
Gas and

Oil Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

Filings Instituting Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP23-968-000.
    Applicants: Elwood Energy LLC v. ANR Pipeline Company.
    Description: Complaint of Elwood Energy LLC v. ANR Pipeline
Company.
    Filed Date: 8/14/23.
    Accession Number: 20230814-5283.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/13/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP23-972-000.
    Applicants: ExxonMobil Oil Corporation, Nesson Gathering System
LLC, XTO Energy Inc.
    Description: Joint Petition for Limited Waiver of Capacity Release
Regulations, et al. of ExxonMobil Oil Corporation, et al.
    Filed Date: 8/18/23.
    Accession Number: 20230818-5216.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 8/30/23.

    Docket Numbers: RP23-976-000.
    Applicants: Gulfstream Natural Gas System, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate and Non-
Conforming--Tampa Electric 9211892 to be effective 12/1/2022.
    Filed Date: 8/23/23.
    Accession Number: 20230823-5005.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 9/5/23.

    Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a
complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with
Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211,
385.214, or 385.206) 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.

Filings in Existing Proceedings

    Docket Numbers: RP23-967-001.
    Applicants: Big Sandy Pipeline, LLC, Bobcat Gas Storage, East
Tennessee Natural Gas, LLC, Egan Hub Storage, LLC, Garden Banks Gas
Pipeline, LLC, Mississippi Canyon Gas Pipeline, L.L.C., Moss Bluff Hub,
LLC, Nautilus Pipeline Company, L.L.C., NEXUS Gas Transmission, LLC,
Sabal Trail Transmission, LLC, Saltville Gas Storage Company L.L.C.,
Southeast Supply Header, LLC, Steckman Ridge, LP, Texas Eastern
Transmission, LP, Maritimes & Northeast Pipeline, L.L.C., Algonquin Gas
Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing: Big Sandy Pipeline, LLC submits
tariff filing per 154.203: Amendment Filing--LINK System Maintenance--
Request for Waivers to be effective N/A.
    Filed Date: 8/23/23.
    Accession Number: 20230823-5003.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 8/30/23.

    Any person desiring to protest in any the above proceedings must
file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18
CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified
comment date.
    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying
the docket number.
    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>.
    For other information, call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY,
call<PHONE_NUMBER>. The Commission's Office of Public Participation
(OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in
Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including
landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and
others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission
processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such
as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is
encouraged to contact OPP at<PHONE_NUMBER> or [email protected].

    Dated: August 23, 2023.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2023-18593 Filed 8-28-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 154 (Friday, August 9, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 39244-39254]
[FR Doc No: 2019-17019]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 51 and 52

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0048; FRL-9997-95-OAR]
RIN 2060-AT89

Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment
New Source Review (NNSR): Project Emissions Accounting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
revise certain New Source Review (NSR) applicability regulations to
clarify the requirements that apply to sources proposing to undertake a
physical or operational change (i.e., a project) under the NSR
preconstruction permitting program. Under this program, an existing
major source proposing to undertake a project must determine whether
that project will constitute a major modification following a two-step
applicability test and thus be subject to the NSR preconstruction
permitting requirements. The first step is to determine if the proposed
project will cause a ``significant emissions increase'' of a regulated
NSR pollutant (Step 1). If the proposed project is projected to cause
such an increase, the second step is to determine if there is a
``significant net emissions increase'' of that pollutant (Step 2). In
this action, we are proposing to revise our NSR applicability
regulations to make it clear that both emissions increases and
emissions decreases that result from a given proposed project are to be
considered at Step 1 of the NSR major modification applicability test.
In addition, this proposal replaces and withdraws the agency's 2006
Project Netting Proposal.

DATES:

    Comments: Comments must be received on or before October 8, 2019.
    Public Hearing: If anyone contacts us requesting to speak at a
public hearing by August 30, 2019, the EPA will hold a public hearing.
Additional information about the hearing will be published in a
subsequent Federal Register document.

ADDRESSES: Comments: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2018-0048, at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the Web, Cloud or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/comments.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jessica Monta[ntilde]ez, 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>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    To request a public hearing or information pertaining to a public
hearing on this document, contact Ms. Pamela Long, Air Quality Policy
Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (C504-01),
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
27711; telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Entities potentially affected directly by this action include
sources in all industry categories. Entities potentially affected by
this action also include state, local and tribal air pollution control
agencies (air agencies) responsible for permitting sources pursuant to
the NSR program.

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?

    When submitting comments, remember to:
     Identify the rulemaking docket by docket number and other
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and
page number).
     Follow directions. The proposed rule may ask you to
respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
     Explain why you agree or disagree, suggest alternatives
and substitute language for your requested changes.
     Describe any assumptions and provide any technical
information and/or data that you used to support your comment.
     If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
     Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns
wherever possible and suggest alternatives.
     Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the
use of profanity or personal threats.
     Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

C. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this Federal Register document will be posted at https://www.epa.gov/nsr.

D. How is this proposed rule organized?

    The information presented in this document is organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for the EPA?
    C. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
    D. How is this proposed rule organized?
II. Background
    A. New Source Review Program
    B. Major Modifications Under the NSR Program
    C. Regulatory History
III. This Action
    A. Overview
    B. Revising the Step 1 Applicability Regulations for Projects
That Involve Multiple Types of Emissions Units To Provide Clarity on
These Applicability Procedures
    C. Legal Analysis and Policy Rationale
    D. Implementation of Project Emissions Accounting Under Step 1
of the NSR Applicability Regulations
IV. Withdrawing the 2006 Project Netting Proposal
V. Environmental Justice Considerations
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs
    C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    I. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTA)
    K. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
VII. Statutory Authority

II. Background

A. New Source Review Program

    The major NSR provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA) are a
combination of air quality planning and air pollution control
technology provisions that require stationary sources of air pollution
to obtain a preconstruction permit prior to beginning the construction
of a new major stationary source or a major modification of an existing
major stationary source. Part C of title I of the CAA contains the
requirements for the preconstruction review and permitting of new and
modified major stationary sources of air pollution (specifically,
regulated NSR pollutants) locating in areas meeting the National
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) (``attainment'' areas) and, areas
for which there is insufficient information to classify an area as
either attainment or nonattainment (``unclassifiable'' areas).\1\ This
program is known as the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
program.

Part D of title I of the CAA contains the requirements for the
preconstruction review and permitting of new and modified major
stationary sources of air pollution locating in areas not meeting the
NAAQS (``nonattainment'' areas). This program is known as the
Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) program.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 40 CFR 52.21(b)(50) defines the term ``regulated NSR
pollutant'' for purposes of the Prevention of Significant
Deterioration program. The term generally includes pollutants for
which a NAAQS has been promulgated and other pollutants subject to
regulation under the CAA. This ``regulated NSR pollutant''
definition, however, excludes the Hazardous Air Pollutants regulated
under section 112 of the CAA.
    \2\ For purposes of NNSR, ``regulated NSR pollutant'' is defined
at 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(xxxvii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The permit program for non-major sources and minor modifications to
major sources is known as the minor NSR program. CAA section
110(a)(2)(C) requires states to develop a program, which includes a
permitting program to regulate the construction and modification of any
stationary source ``as necessary to assure that [NAAQS] are achieved.''
    To comply with the requirements of the CAA and the major NSR
implementing regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 and 51.165 respectively, most
states have EPA-approved State Implementation Plans (SIPs) in place to
implement the PSD and NNSR preconstruction permit programs. For states
and tribes that lack an EPA-approved SIP or Tribal Implementation Plan
(TIP) to implement the PSD permit program, the federal PSD program at
40 CFR 52.21 applies. For states that do not have an approved NNSR SIP
for a particular nonattainment pollutant, Appendix S to 40 CFR part 51
contains an interim NNSR program. This interim program enables
implementation of NNSR permitting in such areas during the time between
the date of the relevant nonattainment designation and the date on
which the EPA approves into the SIP a NNSR program or additional
components of an NNSR program for a particular pollutant. The EPA also
has a federal NNSR program at 40 CFR 49.165 that only applies to tribal
areas that do not have an EPA-approved TIP in place to implement the
NNSR program.\3\ For stationary sources whose emissions are lower than
the PSD and NNSR applicability thresholds, minor NSR permitting
requirements might apply. Sources should consult with the applicable
state or local permitting agency, or for most tribal areas the
applicable EPA Regional office,\4\ to determine if any minor NSR
requirements may apply to your stationary source.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ To date, no tribe has submitted a TIP to administer the NNSR
program for any lands under their jurisdiction. Thus, the EPA is
currently the NNSR reviewing authority in Indian Country.
    \4\ To date, most tribes have not submitted a TIP to administer
the minor NSR program for any lands under their jurisdiction. Thus,
the EPA is currently the minor NSR reviewing authority in Indian
country for most tribal areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The applicability of the PSD, NNSR, or minor NSR programs to a
stationary source must be determined in advance of construction and is
a pollutant-specific determination. Thus, a stationary source may be
subject to the PSD program for certain pollutants, NNSR for some
pollutants and minor NSR for others.

B. Major Modifications Under the NSR Program

    Our NSR regulations define a major modification \5\ as any physical
change in or change in the method of operation of an existing major
stationary source that would result in a significant emissions increase
of a regulated NSR pollutant (known as Step 1) and a significant net
emissions increase of that pollutant (known as Step 2) from the major
stationary source. This two-step test, which has been an element of the
NSR program since the 1980's, was codified by the 2002 NSR Reform Rule
\6\ to explicitly include the prior EPA practice of looking first at
whether any emissions increase that may result from the project \7\ by
itself would be significant before evaluating whether there would be a
significant ``net emission increase'' \8\ from the major stationary
source as a whole. In other words, Step 1 considers the effect of the
project alone and Step 2 considers the effect of the project and any
other emissions changes at the major stationary source that are
contemporaneous to the project (i.e., generally within a 5-year period)
and creditable. We currently refer to Step 1 applicability procedures
as ``project emissions accounting'' (previously known as ``project
netting'') and Step 2 as ``contemporaneous netting.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 40 CFR 52.21(b)(2). The regulations at 40 CFR 52.21 apply to
the federal PSD program, however, the EPA has other NSR regulations,
including 40 CFR 51.165, 51.166, and Appendix S of part 51, that
contain analogous provisions. This proposal also applies to those
analogous provisions. However, there are certain modification
provisions under the Title I, Subpart D of the CAA and the EPA
nonattainment NSR regulations that apply to certain nonattainment
area classifications (See, e.g., CAA section 182(e)(2); 40 CFR part
51, Appendix S 11.A.5.(v)). This proposal does not cover those
provisions.
    \6\ In 2002, the EPA issued a final rule that revised the
regulations governing the major NSR program. The agency refers
generally to these rule provisions as the ``NSR Reform Rule.'' As
part of this rule, the EPA revised the NSR applicability
requirements for modifications to allow sources more flexibility to
respond to rapidly changing markets and plan for future investments
in pollution control and prevention technologies. 67 FR 80186
(December 31, 2002).
    \7\ 40 CFR 52.21(b)(52). In general, we use the term ``project''
to mean the physical change or change in method of operation under
review, though this can encompass one or more activities at an
existing major source. A subsequent section of this rule's preamble
discusses how multiple activities should be evaluated to determine
whether these activities constitute one project.
    \8\ 40 CFR 52.21(b)(3).
    \9\ Contemporaneous netting is voluntary and can add significant
complexity to the NSR applicability process in that it requires the
additional accounting of all other increases and decreases in actual
emissions that are contemporaneous and creditable to the project.
Additionally, to be creditable, emissions decreases accounted for
under Step 2 must, among other things, be enforceable as a practical
matter at and after the time actual construction on the project
being evaluated under Step 1 begins. This requirement can limit
operational flexibility and increase permitting burden.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    An emissions increase of a regulated NSR pollutant is considered
significant at Step 1 or 2 if the emissions increase would be equal to
or greater than any of the pollutant-specific significant emissions
rates listed under the definition of ``significant'' in the applicable
PSD or NNSR regulations.\10\ For those regulated NSR pollutants not
specifically listed, any increase in emissions is significant. In
addition, the procedure for calculating whether a proposed project
would result in a significant emissions increase depends upon the type
of emissions unit(s) \11\ that would be included in the proposed
project. The emissions units involved in a project can be new,
existing, or a combination of new and existing units.\12\ For new
units,\13\ the NSR regulations require the difference in pre-and post-
project emissions to be calculated based on the difference between
baseline actual emissions (as applicable to new emissions units) \14\
and potential to emit (PTE) \15\ after the project. For existing
units,\16\ the NSR regulations allow the difference in pre-and post-
project emissions to be calculated based on the difference between
baseline actual emissions (as

applicable to existing emissions units) \17\ and projected actual
emissions.\18\ Baseline actual emissions are generally based on the
rate of actual emissions a unit has emitted in the past. Projected
actual emissions are based on the maximum rate of actual emissions a
unit is projected to emit in the future. Potential to emit represents a
unit's maximum capacity to emit a pollutant under its physical and
operational design.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 40 CFR 52.21(b)(23) defines when emissions of listed
pollutants are considered significant under the federal PSD program.
These pollutants include, but are not limited to, the following:
Pollutants for which a NAAQS has been promulgated, fluorides, and
sulfuric acid mist.
    \11\ 40 CFR 52.21(b)(7). There are two types of emissions units,
new and existing. A ``replacement unit'' as defined in the NSR
regulations is an existing emissions unit.
    \12\ 40 CFR 52.21(a)(2)(iv).
    \13\ 40 CFR 52.21(b)(7)(i).
    \14\ The NSR regulations define a ``new emissions unit'' as
``any emissions unit that is (or will be) newly constructed and that
has existed for less than two years from the date such emission unit
first operated.'' 40 CFR 52.21(b)(7)(i). The ``baseline actual
emissions for purposes of determining the emissions increase that
will result from the initial construction and operation of such unit
shall equal zero; and thereafter, for all other purposes, shall
equal the unit's potential to emit.'' 40 CFR 52.21(b)(48)(iii).
    \15\ 40 CFR 52.21(b)(4).
    \16\ 40 CFR 52.21(b)(7)(ii).
    \17\ 40 CFR 52.21(b)(48)(i) and (ii).
    \18\ 40 CFR 52.21(b)(41). Alternatively, a source may elect to
use potential to emit in lieu of projected actual emissions as
described in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(41)(ii)(d).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Step 2, or contemporaneous netting, is described in 40 CFR
52.21(a)(2)(iv)(a). Once a source owner or operator determines that a
significant emissions increase would occur at Step 1, then the source
owner or operator may perform the Step 2 or contemporaneous netting
analysis to determine if there would be a significant net emissions
increase. A ``net emissions increase'' is specifically defined at 40
CFR 52.21 (b)(3) \19\ and ``means, with respect to any regulated NSR
pollutant emitted at a major stationary source, the amount of which the
sum of the following exceeds zero: (a) The increase in emissions from a
particular physical change or change in the method of operation at a
stationary source as calculated pursuant to [40 CFR 52.21] (a)(2)(iv),
and (b) any other increases and decreases in actual emissions at the
major stationary source that are contemporaneous with the particular
change and are otherwise creditable.'' Thus, the Step 2 contemporaneous
netting analysis is conducted by adding the resulting emissions changes
from the project at Step 1 to all other emissions increases and
decreases in actual emissions at the major stationary source that are
contemporaneous with the Step 1 project and otherwise creditable. If
there is a significant net emissions increase after the Step 2
contemporaneous netting analysis, then the project is a major
modification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ 40 CFR 51.166(b)(3) contains the same definition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Emissions increases and decreases are contemporaneous if they occur
between ``the date five years before construction of a particular
project commences and the date that the increase from a particular
change occurs.'' \20\ An emissions increase or decrease in actual
emissions under Step 2 is creditable only if the EPA Administrator or
other reviewing authority has not relied on it in issuing a PSD or NNSR
permit for the source and the permit is still in effect at the time of
the major modification.\21\ Furthermore, emissions increases under Step
2 are only creditable if the new level of actual emissions exceeds the
old level of actual emissions.\22\ Emissions decreases under Step 2, on
the other hand, are creditable only to the extent that the old level of
actual emissions or the old level of allowable emissions, whichever is
lower, exceeds the new level of actual emissions and the decrease in
actual emissions is enforceable as a practical matter at and after the
time that actual construction of the particular change begins.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ 40 CFR 52.21(b)(3)(ii).
    \21\ 40 CFR 52.21(b)(3)(iii)(a).
    \22\ 40 CFR 52.21(b)(3)(v).
    \23\ 40 CFR 52.21(b)(3)(vi).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, for a project that results in a significant emissions
increase under Step 1 of the major modification applicability test and
a significant net emissions increase as determined under Step 2, the
modification is a major modification.

C. Regulatory History

    In 2002, as part of the NSR Reform Rule, the EPA revised the
applicability procedures in its NSR regulations, including procedures
for determining whether a project at an existing major stationary
source constitutes a major modification. This 2002 rule codified the
EPA's prior interpretation that one must first determine whether
``there will be a significant emissions increase from the modification
itself,'' \24\ and only then move on to assess whether there will be a
significant net emissions increase (based on the contemporaneous
netting analysis).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Memorandum from Edward E. Reich, Director, Division of
Stationary Source Enforcement to Charles Whitmore Chief, Technical
Analysis Section, Region VII; ``Re: PSD Applicability,'' January 22,
1981.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2006, the EPA issued a proposed rule titled, ``Prevention of
Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment New Source Review:
Debottlenecking, Aggregation and Project Netting'' (2006 Project
Netting Proposal) \25\ to address, among other topics, the accounting
of emissions under Step 1 of the major modification applicability test.
Prior to the 2006 Project Netting Proposal, the agency had come to
perceive that there was some uncertainty both within the regulated
community and among reviewing authorities with respect to how to
account for emissions at Step 1 of the NSR applicability regulations,
insofar as some sources and reviewing authorities were counting both
emissions decreases and emissions increases from a project at Step 1 of
the major modification applicability test, while others were only
considering emissions increases from a project at Step 1.\26\ In
addition, the EPA made applicability determinations before and after
this proposal in which it suggested that the NSR applicability
regulations could be read as precluding the consideration of emissions
decreases at Step 1 of the major modification applicability test.\27\
The agency indicated in the 2006 Project Netting Proposal that the
current regulatory text for projects that involve multiple types of
emissions units,\28\ which uses the term ``sum of the emissions
increases for each emissions unit,'' ``would not allow a source to
include reductions from units that are part of the project until Step 2
of the calculation,'' while the current regulatory text that applies to
projects that involve only new or existing units, which uses the term
``sum of the difference,'' would allow for the consideration of both
emissions increases and decreases at Step 1 because that ``difference
may either be a positive number (representing a projected increase) or
a negative number (representing a projected decrease).'' \29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 71 FR 54235 (September 14, 2006).
    \26\ 71 FR 54248 (September 14, 2006) (``The EPA recognizes that
in the past some sources and permitting authorities have counted
decreases in emissions at the individual units involved in the
project when determining an overall project emissions increase
(i.e., Step 1 of the NSR test), while some have not.'').
    \27\ For example, in the 2006 Project Netting Proposal the EPA
mentioned that ``In past [permitting applicability] determinations,
the EPA has stated that only the increases resulting from the
project are considered in determining whether a significant
emissions increase has occurred in Step 1.'' 71 FR 54248 (September
14, 2006). In addition, a 2010 letter from Barbara A. Finazzo, U.S.
EPA Region 2 to Kathleen Antoine, HOVENSA, LLC, ``Re: HOVENSA Gas
Turbine Nitrogen Oxides (GT NOX) Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) Permit Application-Emission
Calculation Clarification,'' March 30, 2010, stated a similar
conclusion.
    \28\ 40 CFR 52.21 (a)(2)(iv)(f).
    \29\ 71 FR 54249 (September 14, 2006).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the 2006 Project Netting Proposal, we solicited public comment
on revising the relevant regulatory text to expressly provide that both
emissions increases and decreases that occur within the scope of a
project be counted in Step 1 of the major modification applicability
test for all project categories. The EPA explained that this was
appropriate in order to ``represent the true environmental impact of a
project on all involved emissions units.'' \30\ In January 2009,
however, the EPA announced in a Federal Register notice \31\ that it
was taking no action on the ``project netting'' portion of the 2006
proposal since the agency was still

considering whether and how to proceed with that proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Id.
    \31\ 74 FR 2376 (January 15, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In early 2017, the new Administration issued a Presidential
Memorandum and several Executive Orders initiating a review of
regulatory requirements. One of those actions was the Presidential
Memorandum on Streamlining Permitting and Reducing Regulatory Burdens
for Domestic Manufacturing.\32\ The Presidential Memorandum directed
the Secretary of Commerce to conduct outreach to stakeholders
concerning the impact of federal regulations on domestic manufacturing
and solicit comments from the public concerning federal actions to
streamline permitting and reduce regulatory burdens for domestic
manufacturers.\33\ A number of the comments the Department of Commerce
subsequently received were related to ``project netting.'' \34\ In
those comments, the commenters asked the EPA to allow for ``project
netting'' in Step 1 of the NSR applicability test because, in general,
most of these stakeholders believed that ``project netting''
streamlines permitting. In addition, some of these commenters asked the
agency to finalize the 2006 Project Netting Proposal. During the public
comment period for another action, Executive Order 13777 on Enforcing
the Regulatory Reform Agenda,\35\ the agency received over 20 comments
specifically on ``project netting.'' \36\ As with the commenters on the
Presidential Memorandum on Streamlining Permitting, all of these
commenters argued that the agency should allow for ``project netting.''
For example, one commenter stated that they had ``recently supported a
client in obtaining a PSD permit in which Step 1 of the PSD
applicability analysis exceeded the PSD [Significant Emission Rate]
(SER) for several pollutants due to the fact that emissions reductions
at certain emissions units could not be counted in Step 1.'' \37\ This
commenter represented that ``if ``project netting'' had been allowed in
Step 1, then PSD review would not have been triggered'' and the client
would had saved ``four additional months and an additional $80,000 in
obtaining a PSD permit.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ 82 FR 8667 (January 30, 2017).
    \33\ 82 FR 12786 (March 7, 2017).
    \34\ https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=DOC-2017-0001.
    \35\ 82 FR 17793 (April 13, 2017).
    \36\ https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EPA-HQ-OA-2017-0190.
    \37\ EPA-HQ-OA-2017-0190-53674.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    After consideration of the ``project netting'' regulatory history,
past interpretations, and the recent public comments on this topic, in
March 2018, the EPA Administrator issued a memorandum titled ``Project
Emissions Accounting Under the New Source Review Preconstruction
Permitting Program'' (the ``March 2018 Memorandum'').\38\ The March
2018 Memorandum communicated the EPA's current interpretation regarding
the consideration of emissions decreases as part of Step 1 of the major
modification applicability test. In the memorandum, the agency
explained that it interprets the current NSR regulations as providing
that emissions decreases as well as increases are to be considered at
Step 1 of the NSR applicability process, where those decreases and
increases are part of a single project.\39\ Unlike in 2006, EPA
determined in the March 2018 Memorandum that decreases could be
considered at Step 1 for all project categories (i.e., new, existing or
projects that involve multiple types of emissions units) . Although the
existing language in the NSR regulations supports this interpretation,
this rulemaking proposal is intended to eliminate uncertainty regarding
this issue. As discussed in more detail below, we propose to revise the
NSR applicability procedures for projects that involve multiple types
of emissions units to make clear that project emissions accounting
should be conducted under Step 1 of the major modification
applicability procedures for all project categories, consistent with
the interpretation set forth in the March 2018 Memorandum. The EPA is
not proposing any changes to the procedures or requirements for Step 2
of the major modification applicability regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Letter from E. Scott Pruitt, to Regional Administrators,
``Project Emissions Accounting Under the New Source Review
Preconstruction Permitting Program,'' March 13, 2018 (``March 2018
Memorandum'').
    \39\ Furthermore, the memorandum clarified that while this Step
1 had previously been referred to as ``project netting,'' this
terminology had caused confusion since the term ``netting'' more
properly describes the consideration of other projects that may have
been or will be undertaken during the contemporaneous period, which
occurs under Step 2 of the major modification applicability test. As
such, the memorandum said that since ``netting'' refers to
consideration of other projects, its use in Step 1 was misplaced and
that the term ``project emissions accounting'' more accurately
reflects the purpose of Step 1 which is to account for the emissions
impacts from the project itself.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. This Action

A. Overview

    In this action, we are proposing revisions to the applicability
provisions in the NSR regulations to fully clarify that the regulatory
language of 40 CFR 52.21(a)(2)(iv)(f) allows the approach set forth in
the March 2018 Memorandum. More specifically, we are proposing to
revise the regulatory language for projects that involve multiple types
of emissions units \40\ to more directly state that both emissions
increases and decreases are to be considered as part of Step 1 of the
major modification applicability test in the same manner as they are
for projects that involve only existing emissions units and projects
that involve only new emissions units. Furthermore, the EPA is seeking
comment on other aspects of the implementation of the concept of
project emissions accounting, including how sources should keep records
of their emissions increases and decreases. In addition, the EPA is
seeking comment on whether states would need to modify their SIPs to
accommodate this rule's clarifications if the rule revisions become
final. Lastly, this proposal supersedes the agency's 2006 Project
Netting Proposal and, as such, this action withdraws the 2006 Project
Netting Proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ 40 CFR 52.21(a)(2)(iv)(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Revising the Step 1 Applicability Regulations for Projects That
Involve Multiple Types of Emissions Units To Provide Clarity on These
Applicability Procedures

    As stated previously, the emissions units involved in a project can
be new, existing or a combination of new and existing units.\41\ For
projects that involve only existing emissions units, the applicability
procedures at 40 CFR 52.21(a)(2)(iv)(c) state that ``a significant
emissions increase of a regulated NSR pollutant is projected to occur
if the sum of the difference between the projected actual emissions and
the baseline actual emissions for each existing emission unit, equals
or exceeds the significant amount for that pollutant.'' For projects
that only involve new emissions units, the applicability procedures at
40 CFR52.21(a)(2)(iv)(d) state that ``a significant emissions increase
of a regulated NSR pollutant is projected to occur if the sum of the
difference between the potential to emit from each new emissions unit
following completion of the project and the baseline actual emissions
of these units before the project equals or exceeds the significant
amount for that pollutant.'' Finally, for projects that involve
multiple types of emissions units (i.e., a combination of new and
existing units), the applicability procedures at 40 CFR
52.21(a)(2)(iv)(f) state that ``a significant emissions increase of a
regulated NSR pollutant is projected to occur if the sum of the
emissions increases for each emissions unit, using the method

specified in [40 CFR 52.21] (a)(2)(iv)(c) through (d) as applicable
with respect to each emissions unit, for each type of emissions unit
equals or exceeds the significant amount for that pollutant.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ 40 CFR 52.21 (a)(2)(iv).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the 2006 Project Netting Proposal, the agency said, consistent
with its prior understanding, that the omission of the phrase ``sum of
the difference'' and the use of the term ``sum of the emissions
increases'' in the regulations for the test for projects involving
multiple types of emissions units (i.e., hybrid test) suggested that
the current NSR regulations ``would not allow a source to include
reductions from units that are part of the project until Step 2 of the
calculation.'' \42\ However, as reflected in the Administrator's March
2018 Memorandum, the agency has reexamined the existing regulations and
their context and has concluded after a more thorough review that, for
projects that involve multiple types of emissions units, ``emissions
decreases are also to be accounted for.'' \43\ The applicability
procedures for projects involving multiple types of emissions units
state that for each type of unit involved in the modification, the
``method specified in [40 CFR 52.21] (a)(2)(iv)(c) through (d) of this
section as applicable with respect to each emission unit'' shall be
used and then the sum of the emissions increases for each type of
emissions unit is calculated to determine if there is a significant
emissions increase for that pollutant. Therefore, since ``the method
specified in [40 CFR 52.21] (a)(2)(iv)(c) through (d) with respect to
each emission unit'' applies, the EPA has concluded that ``the
``current NSR regulations provide that emissions decreases as well as
increases are to be considered at Step 1 of the NSR applicability
process . . .'' \44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ 71 FR 54249 (September 14, 2006).
    \43\ March 2018 Memorandum at 8.
    \44\ March 2018 Memorandum at 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA is proposing to revise a portion of the regulations to end
any confusion and clarify that project emissions accounting is allowed
for all project categories, including projects that involve multiple
types of emissions units. Specifically, the EPA is proposing to revise
the text ``sum of the emissions increase'' in 40 CFR 52.21(a)(2)(iv)(f)
to ``sum of the difference'' as in subparagraphs 40 CFR
52.21(a)(2)(iv)(c) and (d) to make clear that accounting of emissions
increases and decreases under Step 1 of the major modification
applicability test is allowed for projects that involve multiple types
of emissions units. Furthermore, the EPA is proposing to add a
subparagraph (g) to 40 CFR 52.21(a)(2)(iv) to further clarify that the
term ``sum of the difference,'' as used in 40 CFR 52.21(a)(2)(iv)(c)
and (d) and proposed for 40 CFR 52.21(a)(2)(iv)(f), shall include both
increases and decreases in emissions calculated in accordance with the
procedures specified in those paragraphs. These proposed changes will
make clear that projects that involve multiple types of emissions units
should treat the calculation of the change in emissions from the
project in the same way that projects that only involve new units or
only involve existing units. As explained in the March 2018 Memorandum,
the history of this provision in the regulations indicates that the EPA
originally intended that project emissions accounting be allowed at
Step 1 for projects involving different types of units.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ March 2018 Memorandum at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA is seeking comment on these clarifying revisions to the
regulatory text and whether other clarifications might be more
appropriate to convey that consideration of emissions decreases and
increases is allowed as part of Step 1 of the major modification
applicability test for projects that involve both new and existing
emissions units.

C. Legal Analysis and Policy Rationale

    The EPA said in its March 2018 Memorandum that we believe that our
current NSR applicability regulations, promulgated in 2002 can be
reasonably interpreted to allow for project emissions accounting at
Step 1.\46\ However, the agency made statements in 2006 and earlier
that suggested that, at least insofar as the so-called ``hybrid''
applicability test for proposed projects involving both new and
existing units is concerned, emissions decreases may not be taken into
account at Step 1. Thus, in light of this history, the EPA is proposing
to make regulatory revisions that fully clarify that both increases and
decreases in emissions from all categories of projects are to be
considered at Step 1 of the major NSR applicability regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \46\ For example, and as stated in the March 2018 memorandum at
6, ``This interpretation is grounded in the principle that the
`plain language of the CAA indicates that Congress intended to apply
NSR to changes that increase actual emissions.' State of New York v.
EPA, 413 F.3d at 40 (emphasis added). Central to the CAA's
definition of `modification' is that there must be a causal link
between the physical or operational change at issue--i.e., the
`project'--and any change in emissions that may ensue. In other
words, it is necessary to account for the full and direct effect of
the proposed change itself. Accordingly, at the very outset of the
process for determining whether NSR may be triggered, the EPA should
give attention to not only whether emissions may increase from those
units that are part of the project but also whether emissions may at
the same time decrease at other units that are also part of the
project.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Fundamentally, the major NSR applicability regulations discussed
previously are an interpretation of the statutory phrase ``increases
the amount of any air pollutant emitted'' contained in the definition
of ``modification.'' \47\ This definition is cross referenced in both
Part C (PSD) and Part D (NNSR) of the CAA.\48\ The United States Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has recognized that the
CAA ``is silent on how to calculate such `increases' in emissions.''
\49\ Thus, the question of how to determine whether a physical change
or change in method of operation ``increases'' emissions is
ambiguous.\50\ Accordingly, because the statutory text does not itself
dictate how to determine whether a physical change or change in the
method of operation ``increases'' emissions, under the principles of
Chevron,\51\ the ``EPA has the authority to choose an interpretation''
of the term ``increases'' in ``administering the NSR program and
filling in the gaps left by Congress.'' \52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ 42 U.S.C. 7411(a)(4).
    \48\ 42 U.S.C. 7479(2)(C); 42 U.S.C. 7501(4).
    \49\ New York v. EPA, 413 F.3d 3, 22 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (New York
I).
    \50\ New York v. EPA, 443 F.3d 880, 888-89 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (New
York II) (``Congress's use of the word `increases' necessitated
further definition regarding rate and measurement for the term to
have any contextual meaning.'').
    \51\ Chevron U.S.A. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467
U.S. 837, 843 (1984) (Where the ``statute is silent or ambiguous
with respect to the specific issue, the question for the court is
whether the agency's answer is based on a permissible construction
of the statute.'')
    \52\ New York I, 413 F.3d at 23, 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA believes that allowing for consideration of both increases
and decreases from a project is consistent with congressional intent
for these preconstruction programs to cover existing sources only when
they undertook projects which resulted in a non-de minimis increase in
emissions.\53\ If the full scope of emissions changes from a project
were not considered at Step 1, the regulations could subject a project
to preconstruction review when the actual effect of that project would
be to reduce emissions, which would be contrary to congressional intent
for this program.\54\ The EPA sees little policy

support for such an outcome, while allowing the consideration of both
increases and decreases at Step 1 would allow sources to undertake
projects that are overall environmentally beneficial that they might
forgo if decreases could not be considered at Step 1. Therefore, the
EPA believes a two-step process--first determining all of the emissions
changes, both increases and decreases, from the project under
consideration and second, considering any other contemporaneous
increases or decreases that are otherwise creditable--is a reasonable
and allowable interpretation of the phrase ``increases the amount of
any air pollutant emitted'' within the definition of ``modification.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ Alabama Power v. Costle, 636 F.2d 323, 401 (D.C. Cir. 1979)
(``Congress wished to apply the permit process, then, only where
industrial changes might increase pollution in an area, not where an
existing plant changed its operations in ways that produced no
pollution increase.'').
    \54\ Emissions decreases may also be accounted for under Step 2;
however, the language in the NSR regulations makes clear that such
decreases are ones ``other'' than those associated with the project
being evaluated under Step 1. See, e.g., 40 CFR 52.21(b)(3)(i)(b).
Furthermore, as explained previously, additional requirements apply
for creditability of emissions decreases under Step 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, this approach represents sound policy to the extent it
encourages emissions decreases that might not otherwise occur or would
be delayed. In discussions with stakeholders, the EPA has come to
understand that, given the complexities that Step 2 contemporaneous
netting can entail, and given past EPA statements that emissions
decreases could not be accounted for at Step 1, there are occasions
where sources have experienced significant delays or declined
altogether to undertake projects that could have resulted in overall
emissions decreases.\55\ The agency requests additional information on
adverse project impacts that may have occurred and specifically any
examples of environmentally beneficial projects that were proposed or
under consideration but did not move forward as a result of the
apparent unavailability of project emissions accounting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ For example, National Mining Association Response to
Request for Comments on Regulations Appropriate for Repeal,
Replacement, or Modification Pursuant to Executive Order 13777, 82
FR 17793, April 13, 2017, at 3-4, EPA-HQ-2017-0190-37770; Testimony
of Paul Noe for American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) and
American Wood Council (AWC), House Committee on Energy & Commerce,
Subcommittee on Environment, and Climate Change, Oversight Hearing
on ``New Source Review Permitting Challenges for Manufacturing and
Infrastructure,'' at 2, 5, 7-8, February 14, 2018; AF&PA and AWC
April 25, 2019, Executive Order 12866 meeting materials (EPA-HQ-OAR-
2018-0048).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Implementation of Project Emissions Accounting Under Step 1 of the
NSR Applicability Regulations

1. Defining the Scope of a Project
    In the March 2018 Memorandum, the agency explained that, for
purposes of ascertaining whether a proposed project would constitute a
major modification at a major stationary source, defining the scope of
a project that a source owner or operator is proposing to undertake is
a determination that rests within the reasonable discretion of the
source owner or operator.\56\ Further, while the EPA acknowledged the
longstanding principle that, in defining the scope of the project, an
owner or operator cannot seek to circumvent NSR permitting by
separating multiple activities into smaller projects, the EPA did not
``interpret its NSR regulations as directing the agency to preclude a
source from reasonably defining its proposed project broadly, to
reflect multiple activities.'' \57\ The agency concluded by indicating
that it would speak more about this concept of grouping multiple
activities in a then-planned future action regarding ``project
aggregation.'' \58\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ March 2018 Memorandum at 9.
    \57\ Id. The EPA at that same time noted that this NSR
``circumvention'' principle could be seen as giving rise to some
``equivalent understanding that it might be possible to circumvent
NSR through some wholly artificial grouping of activities.'' Id.
    \58\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Subsequently, the EPA took a final action in November 2018
addressing the subject of ``project aggregation'' in the action titled
``Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Nonattainment New Source
Review: Aggregation; Reconsideration.'' \59\ In that final action, the
agency concluded the reconsideration of an earlier action that the EPA
had published on January 15, 2009, titled ``Prevention of Significant
Deterioration and Nonattainment New Source Review: Aggregation and
Project Netting.'' That 2009 action had provided clarification with
respect to when the EPA considered it appropriate to treat nominally
separate activities as a single project for the purpose of determining
NSR applicability at a stationary source. In the final ``project
aggregation'' action, the EPA decided, among other things, not to
revoke the 2009 NSR Aggregation Action but to retain both the
interpretation and the policy set forth therein.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ 83 FR 57324 (November 15, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For purposes of determining the circumstances under which nominally
separate activities should reasonably be considered to be a single
project, ``the 2009 NSR Aggregation Action called for sources and
reviewing authorities to aggregate emissions from nominally-separate
activities when they are ``substantially related.'' \60\ For a project
to be substantially related, the ``interrelationship and
interdependence of the activities [is expected], such that
substantially related activities are likely to be jointly planned
(i.e., part of the same capital improvement project or engineering
study), and occur close in time and at components that are functionally
interconnected.'' \61\ In addition, the November final 2018 project
aggregation action adds that in general ``[to] be `substantially
related,' there should be an apparent interconnection--either
technically or economically--between the physical and/or operational
changes, or a complementary relationship whereby a change at a plant
may exist and operate independently, however its benefit is
significantly reduced without the other activity.'' \62\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ 83 FR 57326 (November 15, 2018).
    \61\ 74 FR 2378 (January 15, 2009).
    \62\ 83 FR 57327 (November 15, 2018). Furthermore, the final
``project aggregation'' action notes that ``these factors are not
necessarily determinative of a substantial relationship, but are
merely indicators that may suggest that two or more activities are
likely to be substantially related and, therefore, candidates for
aggregation.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, the main purpose of the November 2018 final project
aggregation action was to address situations where a source owner or
operator might attempt to circumvent NSR ``through some artificial
separation of activities where it would be unreasonable to consider
them separate projects.'' \63\ This project emissions accounting
proposed action, however, addresses the opposite scenario--i.e.,
``where a source itself is choosing to group together, as a single
project, activities to which a projected emissions decrease is
attributable.'' \64\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \63\ 83 FR 57331 (November 15, 2018).
    \64\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to this latter scenario, the EPA observed in the March
2018 Memorandum that its ``current view is that the concerns regarding
the real possibility that NSR might be circumvented through some
artificial separation of activities where it would be unreasonable to
consider them separate projects,'' were ``not so obviously presented by
the situation where a source itself is choosing to group together, as a
single project, activities to which a projected emissions decrease is
attributable.'' \65\ To the contrary, the EPA observed, the agency
``views this latter situation as one where sources could potentially be
incentivized to seek out emission reductions that might otherwise be
foregone entirely--e.g., because of perceived complexity with
contemporaneous netting under Step 2 of the NSR applicability
analysis.'' \66\ Nevertheless, we said that in a planned future
rulemaking on project emissions accounting, the EPA would take

comment on our current view of this issue.\67\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \65\ Id.
    \66\ Id.
    \67\ 83 FR 57331 (November 15, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The EPA continues to believe that taking account of emissions
decreases at Step 1 does not present any reasonable concerns regarding
NSR circumvention. Therefore, having analyzed the applicability
regulations and having considered the project aggregation final action,
we are not proposing to impose additional requirements or find that
scrutiny equivalent to that which the EPA's approach to project
aggregation requires is warranted with respect to projects where source
owners or operators choose to group together activities into a single
project. We do not believe it is necessary to adopt the same criteria
that apply for separation of activities (i.e., under aggregation) to
the grouping of activities, by considering such grouping to potentially
constitute ``over aggregation'' that, in turn, may constitute NSR
circumvention. The circumvention policy speaks to the situation where a
source carves up what is plainly a single project into multiple
projects, where each of those separate projects may result in emissions
increases below the significance threshold but which, if considered
collectively as one project, would result in an emissions increase
above the threshold. Separate activities that, when considered
together, either decrease emissions or result in an increase that is
not significant are not in view in the EPA's circumvention policy. We
ask for comment on our position in this regard. In addition, we seek
comment on whether, if, in order for an emissions decrease to be
accounted for at Step 1, it would be reasonable to require that a
source owner or operator determine whether the activity (or activities)
to which the emissions decrease is projected to occur is
``substantially related'' to another activity (or activities) to which
an emissions increase is projected to occur. We are particularly
interested in the impacts that this alternative approach might have on
sources' decisions to undertake activities projected to result in
emissions decreases (e.g., whether such decisions might be delayed or
otherwise foregone). The agency requests public input that would
identify examples helpful to inform the agency's judgment on the
emissions and cost impacts of this and other potential alternative
approaches.
    The EPA is currently unable to estimate any cost savings or
emissions decreases associated with project emissions accounting
because most NSR permits are issued by state and local agencies and the
EPA does not have estimates of those permitting statistics.
Furthermore, neither the EPA nor state and local permitting agencies
have access to any decision-making records made by company owners that
would indicate whether a project was or was not undertaken due to the
availability of project emissions accounting. NSR permitting is a case-
by-case determination and source owners make permitting decisions based
on many factors. We do not have access nor require reporting of any
decision-making information for permitting projects that were or were
not pursued. Thus, any examples on the emissions and cost impacts of
project emissions accounting, including the particular cases described
above, could be beneficial for the agency to potentially provide some
level of qualitative analysis when finalizing this action.
2. Monitoring, Recordkeeping and Reporting of Emissions Decreases
During Step 1 of the Applicability Regulations
    In the 2006 Project Netting Proposal, the agency proposed a series
of steps for implementing project emissions accounting under Step 1 of
the major NSR applicability test, including that emissions ``decreases
must be enforceable as a practical matter, or there must be another
procedure that will ensure the decrease actually occurs and is
maintained, and are subject to all the requirements of 40 CFR
52.21(b)(3).'' \68\ The 2006 proposal, however, did not provide an
explanation as to why the EPA considered this step necessary or
warranted. As explained in the March 2018 Memorandum, ``the agency now
recognizes that other provisions in existing regulations serve to
alleviate concerns that projected emissions decreases would escape the
same tracking, documentation and reporting requirement applicable to
projected emissions increases.'' \69\ The March 2018 Memorandum
recognized that the provisions at 40 CFR 52.21(r)(6) are adequate for
recording, tracking, documenting, and reporting emissions decreases as
well as increases for project emissions accounting. The provisions at
40 CFR 52.21(r)(6) were specifically designed for source owners or
operators to document and maintain records when a project that is not a
part of a major modification subject to major NSR permitting
nonetheless presents a reasonable possibility that it may result in a
significant emissions increase of such pollutant after completion. The
regulations provide for, among other things: The identification of the
emissions units affected by the project; the identification of the
applicability test used to determine that the project was not a major
modification; and monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting of emissions
from the units involved in the project based on certain criteria.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \68\ 71 FR 54235 (September 14, 2006).
    \69\ March 2018 Memorandum at 9, footnote 19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The agency ``expressly declined to adopt a requirement under which
a source's post-project projected actual emissions would have become an
enforceable emission limitation'' \70\ as part of the 2002 NSR Reform
Rule,\71\ and the EPA currently believes that ``the same reasoning that
underpinned the 2002 NSR Reform Rule's treatment of projected actual
increases applies equally to projected emissions decreases at Step 1.''
\72\ The EPA continues to believe that ``. . . the combination of the
recordkeeping requirements of this rule, along with a requirement to
report to the reviewing authority any annual emissions that exceed your
baseline actual emissions by a significant amount for the regulated NSR
pollutant and differ from your preconstruction projection, is an
equally effective way to ensure that a reviewing authority can receive
the information necessary to enforce the major NSR requirements.'' \73\
In addition, the NSR regulations make enforceability of emissions
decreases a requirement of Step 2 and not Step 1.\74\ As part of this
proposal, we are seeking comment on whether the 40 CFR 52.21(r)(6)
provisions provide appropriate monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting
requirements for both emissions decreases and increases, as relevant,
in the context of Step 1 of the major modification applicability test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ March 2018 Memorandum at 8.
    \71\ 67 FR 80193, 80197 (December 31, 2002).
    \72\ March 2018 Memorandum at 8. As also stated in the March
2018 Memorandum, if an emissions decrease is calculated using the
potential to emit of a unit after the project, the requirements of
40 CFR 52.21(b)(4) apply.
    \73\ 67 FR 80193, 80204 (December 31, 2002).
    \74\ 40 CFR 52.21(a)(2)(iv) and 40 CFR 52.21(b)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Implementation of Projects Emissions Accounting for Delegated and
SIP-Approved Programs
    The requirements of 40 CFR 52.21 are implemented by the EPA or
reviewing authorities that have been delegated federal authority from
the EPA to issue PSD permits on behalf of the EPA (via a delegation
agreement with an EPA Regional office). Thus, if this regulation is
finalized, any revisions to this federal PSD regulation will
automatically apply to the EPA and permitting authorities

that implement a PSD program pursuant to a delegation agreement.
    For state and local agencies that implement the NSR program through
EPA-approved SIPs, the EPA's regulations for SIP-approved programs in
40 CFR 51.165 and 51.166 include applicability procedures that are
analogous to the applicability procedures at 40 CFR 52.21(a)(2)(iv)
that have been cited in this preamble. As noted previously, the EPA is
also proposing to revise those regulations consistent with the proposed
revisions to 40 CFR 52.21(a)(2)(iv).\75\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ There are certain modification provisions under the title
I, subpart D of the CAA and the EPA nonattainment NSR regulations
that apply to certain nonattainment area classifications (e.g., CAA
182(e)(2); 40 CFR part 51, Appendix S II.A.5.(v)). This proposal, as
with the March 2018 Memorandum, does not address those specific
modification provisions in the CAA or the EPA regulations for
nonattainment areas, and thus, does not communicate any EPA view
regarding the interpretation of those provisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In light of the agency's interpretation that the existing NSR
regulations allow project emissions accounting, and as discussed in the
March 2018 Memorandum, the EPA believes that state and local reviewing
authorities with approved NSR programs do not need to wait until
finalization of this proposal to allow for project emissions accounting
if their local rules and SIPs contain the same language as the EPA's
regulations. In addition, if the EPA were to finalize the
clarifications being proposed in this rulemaking, reviewing authorities
may not need to revise their state regulations and submit SIP revisions
to adopt those revisions if the current applicability procedures in
those regulations can be interpreted to allow for project emissions
accounting or these state and local programs incorporate the federal
NSR regulations by reference without a date restriction.
    Nevertheless, the EPA is currently aware of a few states and locals
where the applicable SIP-approved regulations expressly preclude
project emissions accounting. With respect to this situation, we
request comment on whether the EPA should determine that the revisions
to 40 CFR 51.165(2)(ii)(F) and (G); to 40 CFR 51.166(a)(7)(iv)(f) and
(g); to (IV)(I)(1)(v) and (vi) to Appendix S to part 51; and to 40 CFR
52.21(a)(2)(iv)(f) and (g) that we are proposing here constitute
minimum program elements that must be included in order for state and
local agency programs implementing part C or part D to be approvable
under the SIP.\76\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ Such a determination was made with respect to the NSR
regulatory revisions the EPA made in 2002. 67 FR 80240 (December 31,
2002).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Withdrawing the 2006 Project Netting Proposal

    As mentioned in Section III.A of this notice, this proposal
supersedes the 2006 Project Netting Proposal and, as such, this action
withdraws the 2006 Project Netting Proposal. As the agency explained in
the March 2018 Memorandum, the EPA recently performed a thorough
reconsideration of the regulations pertaining to project emissions
accounting and found that the statement included in the EPA's 2006
Project Netting Proposal that project emissions accounting was not
allowed for projects with multiple types of emissions units \77\ was
unwarranted as ``other language in clause (f) indicates that emissions
decreases are also to be accounted for.'' \78\ Therefore, in light of
this proposal, we believe the 2006 Project Netting Proposal is no
longer necessary and is withdrawn.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ 40 CFR 52.21(a)(2)(iv)(f).
    \78\ March 2018 Memorandum at 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Environmental Justice Considerations

    We do not believe that the proposed clarifying revisions to the NSR
applicability regulations would have any effect on environmental
justice communities. As indicated in the March 2018 Memorandum, the
EPA's NSR regulations in place after the 2002 NSR Reform Rule was
finalized allow project emissions accounting and, as such, no increased
burden is expected for source owners or operators, permitting
authorities or environmental justice communities after finalization of
the clarifications included in this rule.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is a significant regulatory action that was submitted
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review since it raises
policy issues arising from the President's priorities. Any changes made
in response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket.

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling
Regulatory Costs

    This proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of E.O. 13771
(82 FR 9339, February 3, 2017) because this proposed rule would not
result in additional costs.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden
under the PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection
activities contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB
control numbers 2060-0003 for the PSD and NNSR permit programs. The
burden associated with obtaining an NSR permit for a major stationary
source undergoing a major modification is already accounted for under
the approved information collection requests.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities. In general,
major stationary sources undergoing major modifications are not small
entities. In addition, the EPA interprets its current NSR regulations
to allow for project emissions accounting and, as such, no increased
burden is expected for source owners or operators or permit reviewing
authorities after finalization of the clarifications included in this
rule.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded federal mandate as
described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or
uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable
duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector.

F. 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.

G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments

    This action does not have tribal implications as specified in
Executive Order 13175. The EPA's NSR applicability regulations in place
after the 2002 NSR Reform Rule allow for the consideration of emissions
increases and decreases as part of Step 1 of the major NSR
applicability test for modifications and, as such, the clarifying
revisions being proposed in this rule will not have exclusive tribal
implications. Furthermore, the EPA is currently the reviewing authority
for PSD and NNSR permits issued in tribal

lands and, as such, the clarifying revisions being proposed will not
impose direct burdens on tribal permit reviewing authorities. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental
health risk or safety risk.

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

    This action is not a ``significant energy action'' because it is
not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution or use of energy. The EPA interprets its current NSR
regulations to allow for project emissions accounting and, as such, no
increased burden is expected for source owners or permit reviewing
authorities after the finalization of the clarifications included in
this rule.

J. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.

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

    The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as
specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The
EPA interprets its current NSR regulations to allow for project
emissions accounting and this action only proposes clarifying revisions
to the NSR applicability regulations. Accordingly, no
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effects on minority populations, low-income populations and/or
indigenous peoples are expected.

VII. Statutory Authority

    The statutory authority for this action is provided by 42 U.S.C.
7401, et seq.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 51

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control.

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference.

    Dated: August 1, 2019.
Andrew R. Wheeler,
Administrator.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 51--REQUIREMENTS FOR PREPARATION, ADOPTION, AND SUBMITTAL OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 51 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 23 U.S.C. 101; 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

Subpart I--Review of New Sources and Modifications

Sec.  51.165  [Amended]

0
2. Section 51.165 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2)(ii)(F) and
adding paragraph (G) to read as follows:

Sec.  51.165  Permit requirements.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (ii) * * *
    (F) Hybrid test for projects that involve multiple types of
emissions units. A significant emissions increase of a regulated NSR
pollutant is projected to occur if the sum of the difference for all
emissions units, using the method specified in paragraphs (a)(2)(ii)(C)
through (D) of this section as applicable with respect to each
emissions unit, equals or exceeds the significant amount for that
pollutant (as defined in paragraph (a)(1)(x) of this section).
    (G) The ``sum of the difference'' as used in subparagraphs (C), (D)
and (F) of this section shall include both increases and decreases in
emissions calculated in accordance with those subparagraphs.
* * * * *
0
3. Section 51.166 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(7)(iv)(f) and
adding paragraph (g) to read as follows:

Sec.  51.166  Prevention of significant deterioration of air quality.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (7) * * *
    (iv) * * *
    (f) Hybrid test for projects that involve multiple types of
emissions units. A significant emissions increase of a regulated NSR
pollutant is projected to occur if the sum of the difference for all
emissions units, using the method specified in paragraphs (a)(7)(iv)(c)
through (d) of this section as applicable with respect to each
emissions unit, equals or exceeds the significant amount for that
pollutant (as defined in paragraph (b)(23) of this section).
    (g) The ``sum of the difference'' as used in subparagraphs (c), (d)
and (f) shall include both increases and decreases in emissions
calculated in accordance with those subparagraphs.
* * * * *
0
4. Appendix S to part 51 is amended by revising paragraph IV.I.1.(v)
and adding paragraph (vi) to read as follows:

Appendix S to Part 51--Emissions Offset Interpretative Ruling

* * * * *
    IV. Sources that Would Locate in a Designated Nonattainment Area
* * * * *
    I. Applicability procedures.
    1. * * *
    (v) Hybrid test for projects that involve multiple types of
emissions units. A significant emissions increase of a regulated NSR
pollutant is projected to occur if the sum of the difference for all
emissions units, using the method specified in paragraphs
IV.I.1(iii) through (iv) of this Ruling as applicable with respect
to each emissions unit, equals or exceeds the significant amount for
that pollutant (as defined in paragraph II.A.10 of this Ruling).
    (vi) The ``sum of the difference'' as used in subparagraphs
(iii), (iv) and (v) shall include both increases and decreases in
emissions calculated in accordance with those subparagraphs.
* * * * *

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart A--General Provisions

0
6. Section 52.21 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(2)(iv)(f) and
adding paragraph (g) to read as follows:

Sec.  52.21  Prevention of significant deterioration of air quality.

* * * * *
    (a) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iv) * * *
    (f) Hybrid test for projects that involve multiple types of
emissions units. A

significant emissions increase of a regulated NSR pollutant is
projected to occur if the sum of the difference for all emissions
units, using the method specified in paragraphs (a)(2)(iv)(c) through
(d) of this section as applicable with respect to each emissions unit,
equals or exceeds the significant amount for that pollutant (as defined
in paragraph (b)(23) of this section).
    (g) The ``sum of the difference'' as used in subparagraphs (c), (d)
and (f) shall include both increases and decreases in emissions
calculated in accordance with those subparagraphs.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2019-17019 Filed 8-8-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 125 (Monday, June 29, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 38887-38888]
[FR Doc No: 2020-13892]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OECA-2013-0325; FRL--10011-66-OMS]

Information Collection Request Submitted to OMB for Review and
Approval; Comment Request; NESHAP for Benzene Emissions From Benzene
Storage Vessels and Coke Oven By-Product Recovery Plants (Renewal)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an
information collection request (ICR), NESHAP for Benzene Emissions from
Benzene Storage Vessels and Coke Oven By-Product Recovery Plants (EPA
ICR Number 1080.16, OMB Control Number 2060-0185), to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with
the Paperwork Reduction Act. This is a proposed extension of the ICR,
which is currently approved through August 31, 2020. Public comments
were previously requested, via the Federal Register, on May 6, 2019
during a 60-day comment period. This notice allows for an additional 30
days for public comments. A fuller description of the ICR is given
below, including its estimated burden and cost to the public. An agency
may neither conduct nor sponsor, and a person is not required to
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently
valid OMB control number.

DATES: Additional comments may be submitted on or before July 29, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-
OECA-2013-0325, to: (1) EPA online using www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method), or by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or by mail to:
EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 28221T,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; and (2) OMB via email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Address comments to OMB Desk Officer
for EPA.
    EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the
public docket without change, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patrick Yellin, Monitoring,
Assistance,

and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, Mail Code 2227A,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington,
DC 20460; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supporting documents, which explain in
detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available
in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
www.regulations.gov, or in person at the EPA Docket Center, WJC West,
Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The telephone
number for the Docket Center is 02-566-1744. For additional information
about EPA's public docket, visit: http://www.epa.gov/dockets.
    Abstract: The NESHAP for Coke Oven By-Product Recovery Plants (40
CFR part 61, subpart L) were promulgated on September 14, 1989 (54 FR
38073) and amended on February 12, 1999 (64 FR 7458). These regulations
apply to each of the following benzene emission sources at furnace and
foundry coke by-product recovery plants: Tar decanters, tar storage
tanks, tar-intercepting sumps, flushing-liquor circulation tanks,
light-oil sumps, light-oil condensers, light-oil decanters, wash-oil
decanters, wash-oil circulation tanks, naphthalene processing, final
coolers, final-cooler cooling towers, and equipment intended to operate
in benzene service, including: Pumps, valves, exhausters, pressure
relief devices, sampling connection systems, open-ended valves or
lines, flanges or other connectors, and other control devices or
systems. The provisions of this subpart also apply to benzene storage
tanks, BTX (benzene-toluene-xylene) storage tanks, light-oil storage
tanks, and excess ammonia-liquor storage tanks at furnace coke by-
product recovery plants. This information is being collected to assure
compliance with 40 CFR part 61, subpart L.
    The NESHAP for Benzene Emissions from Benzene Storage Vessels (40
CFR part 61, subpart Y) were promulgated on September 14, 1989 (54 FR
38077) and amended on December 14, 2000 (65 FR 78268). These standards
apply to each benzene storage vessel with a design storage capacity
greater than or equal to 38 cubic meters (10,000 gallons). This subpart
does not apply to: (1) Storage vessels used for storing benzene at coke
by-product facilities; (2) vessels permanently attached to motor
vehicles--such as trucks, rail cars, barges or ships; and (3) pressure
vessels designed to operate in excess of 204.9 kPa (29.72 psia) and
without emissions to the atmosphere. This information is being
collected to assure compliance with 40 CFR part 61, subpart Y.
    In general, all NESHAP standards require initial notifications,
performance tests, and periodic reports by the owners/operators of the
affected facilities. They are also required to maintain records of the
occurrence and duration of any startup, shutdown, or malfunction in the
operation of an affected facility, or any period during which the
monitoring system is inoperative. These notifications, reports, and
records are essential in determining compliance, and are required of
all affected facilities subject to NESHAP.
    Form Numbers: None.
    Respondents/affected entities: Owners or operators of benzene
storage vessels and coke oven by-product recovery plants.
    Respondent's obligation to respond: Mandatory (40 CFR part 41,
subparts L and Y).
    Estimated number of respondents: 13 (total).
    Frequency of response: Occasionally, semiannually, and annually.
    Total estimated burden: 1,730 hours (per year). Burden is defined
at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
    Total estimated cost: $201,000 (per year), which includes $0 in
annualized capital/startup and/or operation & maintenance costs.
    Changes in the Estimates: There is an adjustment decrease in the
total estimated burden as currently identified in the OMB Inventory of
Approved Burdens. This increase is not due to any program changes.
Based on consultations with industry, the number of coke plants subject
to Subpart L has been revised since the previous ICR, while the number
of facilities subject to Subpart Y remains unchanged. The number of
coke plants subject to Subpart L reflects a decrease in the number of
operating coke by-product recovery plants. This change results in a
decrease in both burden hours and the number of responses.

Courtney Kerwin,
Director, Regulatory Support Division.
[FR Doc. 2020-13892 Filed 6-26-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 98 (Friday, May 20, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31953-31954]
[FR Doc No: 2016-11960]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2014-0022]

Technical Mapping Advisory Council

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Committee Management; Notice of Federal Advisory Committee
Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Technical
Mapping Advisory Council (TMAC) will meet via conference call on June 6
and 7, 2016. The meeting will be open to the public.

DATES: The TMAC will meet via conference call on Monday, June 6, 2016
from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT), and on
Tuesday, June 7, 2016 from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EDT. Please note
that the meeting will close early if the TMAC has completed its
business.

ADDRESSES: For information on how to access to the conference call,
information on services for individuals with disabilities, or to
request special assistance for the meeting, contact the person listed
in For Further Information Contact below as soon as possible. Members
of the public who wish to dial in for the meeting must register in
advance by sending an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>(attention
Kathleen Boyer) by 11 a.m. EDT on Wednesday, June 1, 2016.
    To facilitate public participation, members of the public are
invited to provide written comments on the issues to be considered by
the TMAC, as listed in the Supplementary Information section below. The
Agenda and other associated material will be available for review at
www.fema.gov/TMAC by Monday, May 30, 2016. Written comments to be
considered by the committee at the time of the meeting must be received
by Thursday, June 2, 2016, identified by Docket ID FEMA-2014-0022, and
submitted by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Email: Address the email TO<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and
CC<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Include the docket number in the subject
line of the message. Include name and contact detail in the body of the
email.
     Mail: Regulatory Affairs Division, Office of Chief
Counsel, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Room 8NE, Washington, DC 20472-3100.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the words
``Federal Emergency Management Agency'' and the docket number for this
action. Comments received will be posted without alteration at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided.
Docket: For docket access to read background documents or comments
received by the TMAC, go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for
the Docket ID FEMA-2014-0022.
    A public comment period will be held on June 6, 2016, from 11:00-
11:20 a.m. and June 7, 2016 from 11:00-11:20 a.m. EDT. Speakers are
requested to limit their comments to no more than two minutes. Each
public comment period will not exceed 20 minutes. Please note that the
public comment periods may end before the time indicated, following the
last call for comments. Contact the individual listed below to register
as a speaker by close of business on Thursday, June 2, 2016.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen Boyer, Designated Federal
Officer for the TMAC, FEMA, 1800 South Bell Street Arlington, VA 22202,
telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, and email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>The
TMAC Web site is: http://www.fema.gov/TMAC.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice of this meeting is given under the
Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. Appendix.
    As required by the Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of
2012, the TMAC makes recommendations to the FEMA Administrator on: (1)
How to improve, in a cost-effective manner, the (a) accuracy, general
quality, ease of use, and distribution and dissemination of flood
insurance rate maps and risk data; and (b) performance metrics and
milestones required to effectively and

efficiently map flood risk areas in the United States; (2) mapping
standards and guidelines for (a) flood insurance rate maps, and (b)
data accuracy, data quality, data currency, and data eligibility; (3)
how to maintain, on an ongoing basis, flood insurance rate maps and
flood risk identification; (4) procedures for delegating mapping
activities to State and local mapping partners; and (5)(a) methods for
improving interagency and intergovernmental coordination on flood
mapping and flood risk determination, and (b) a funding strategy to
leverage and coordinate budgets and expenditures across Federal
agencies. Furthermore, the TMAC is required to submit an Annual Report
to the FEMA Administrator that contains: (1) A description of the
activities of the Council; (2) an evaluation of the status and
performance of flood insurance rate maps and mapping activities to
revise and update Flood Insurance Rate Maps; and (3) a summary of
recommendations made by the Council to the FEMA Administrator.
    Further, in accordance with the Homeowner Flood Insurance
Affordability Act of 2014, the TMAC must develop a review report
related to flood mapping in support of the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP).
    Agenda: On June 6 and 7, 2016, the TMAC will debate and vote on the
final content of the 2016 FEMA flood mapping program review report
(Review Report). The Review Report evaluates the FEMA National Flood
Mapping Program as required by the Homeowner Flood Insurance
Affordability Act. In addition, the TMAC will continue to discuss draft
recommendations for the required 2016 TMAC Annual Report. A public
comment period will take place at the beginning of the meeting at 11:00
a.m. EDT each day, and another brief public comment period will also be
offered prior to any Council vote. A more detailed agenda will be
posted by May 30, 2016, at http://www.fema.gov/TMAC.

    Dated: May 16, 2016.
Roy E. Wright,
Deputy Associate Administrator, for Insurance and Mitigation, Federal
Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2016-11960 Filed 5-19-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-12-P