[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 40 (Tuesday, March 1, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11308-11309]
[FR Doc No: 2011-4237]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Notification of Pilot-in-Command; Notice of Public Meeting

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA's Office of Hazardous Materials and the Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration's (PHMSA) Office of Hazardous
Materials Safety announce a public meeting on March 11, 2011 to hear
comments and gather information regarding Notification to Pilot in
Command (NOPICs) (see 49 CFR 175.33 and ICAO TI 7;4.1). The
International Civil Aviation Organization's (ICAO) Dangerous Goods
Panel has begun to examine this issue and consider the informational
needs of those who rely on this document. Statements by interested
parties will be considered as the U.S. develops its position on this
issue.

DATES: The public meeting will be held on March 11, 2011 from 9 a.m.
until 3:30 p.m. Web-conferencing capabilities will be provided. The
agenda for the meeting will be as follows:
     8:30 a.m. to 9 a.m.: Sign-in
     9 a.m. to 10 a.m.: FAA Air Traffic Control Organization
Briefing on the Flight Object Initiative.
     10 a.m. to 12 p.m.: Statements and information from air
carriers and their representatives.
     12 p.m. to 12:30 p.m.: Break
     12:30 p.m. to 1:30 p.m.: Statements and information from
airline pilots and their representatives.
     1:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m.: Statements and information from
emergency responders and their representatives.
     2:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.: Statements and information from
airports, air traffic controllers, stakeholders not referenced above,
as well as those unable to speak in their designated time frame.
    The deadline to register for the meeting, submit a request to make
an oral statement and/or participate via web-conferencing is March 4,
2011. All participants are requested to register at the following Web
site: https://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?formkey=dExRVGF5WmtOSzZuZWxBSTdBQ2VCR1E6MQ.
    Specific information will be provided on how to participate via
web-conferencing upon registration to FAA.

ADDRESSES: The March 11, 2011, public meeting will be held at FAA
Headquarters (FOB 10A), Bessie Coleman Conference Center, 2nd Floor,
800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC. For questions or
directions, please call the FAA's Office of Hazardous Materials, (202)
385-4900.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions regarding the meeting should
be directed to Ms. Janet McLaughlin, Division Manager, Office of
Hazardous Materials, International and Outreach Division, ADG-200,
Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue, SW,
Washington, DC 20591; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    We are committed to providing equal access to this meeting for all
participants. If you need alternative formats or other reasonable
accommodations, please call<PHONE_NUMBER> or e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>with your request by close of business March 4, 2011.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Purpose of the Public Meeting

    The purpose of the public meeting is for the FAA and PHMSA to hear
the public's views and obtain relevant information on the Notification
to Pilot in Command (NOPIC), also referred to as Notification to
Capitan (NOTOC), processes described in 49 CFR 175.33. The United
States is in the process of formulating a position that will be offered
as the International Civil Aviation Organization's Dangerous

Goods Panel considers revisions to this document.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Corresponding, but non-identical requirements for NOTOCs can
be found in Part7;4.1 of the ICAO Technical Instructions for the
Safe Transport of Dangerous Goods by Air (ICAO TI). The Department
of Transportation has a history and statutory mandate to harmonize
with the ICAO TI when safety considerations and the public interest
are not compromised. 49 USC 5120(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The FAA and PHMSA are interested in acquiring a comprehensive
understanding of the entire NOTOC system. Participants are encouraged
to address the following issues:

Processes

     While recognizing variance between air carriers, what are
the process(es) leading to the generation of the NOTOC and its delivery
to the pilot in command?
     What are the processes involved in providing emergency
responders the information they require?

What are each stakeholder's unique informational needs?

     When an onboard incident/emergency occurs not caused by or
immediately associated with hazardous materials how does (or how could)
the information on the NOTOC impact a pilot's reaction? How does this
compare to when hazardous materials are the suspected cause of an
onboard incident?
     Are there notable instances where the presence of
information or lack of information impacted an air carrier's, pilot's,
or emergency responder's course of action?
     Should there be a distinction (i.e. format or information
included) between passenger and cargo-only air carriers?

General Questions

     For hazardous materials required to be listed on NOTOCs,
is there additional information that would be useful? Is there certain
information extraneous to NOTOC users?
     Are there certain excepted hazardous materials not
currently required to be on a NOTOC that should be included on the
NOTOC? Are there hazardous materials currently required to be on the
NOTOC that may not need to be included?
     Can the format of the NOTOC be improved? Should different
versions be considered for different users?
     Should consumer commodities be addressed in an alternative
manner?

When the NOTOC is provided to Flight Crews

     49 CFR 175.33(a) requires ``accurate and legible written
information'' be provided to pilots in command, ``as early as
practicable before departure of the aircraft''. The FAA and PHMSA are
interested in investigating if current airline processes afford
sufficient time for pilots in command to review the NOTOC, particularly
taking into account the extensive demands of an aircrew prior to
departure. How do airlines implement this policy and how can it be
improved?

When the NOTOC is provided to Emergency Responders

     49 CFR 175.33(c)(3) requires NOTOCs to be readily
accessible at the intended arrival airport. 49 CFR 175.33(c)(4)
requires NOTOCs (or the information contained within NOTOC's) to be
issued to emergency responders at reasonable times and locations. The
FAA, PHMSA, and relevant stakeholders are well aware of instances of
unacceptable delay in providing required information to emergency
responders. What improvements to this process have been made or are
being considered? How are airlines considering leveraging new
technologies where someday even ``unintended'' arrival airports would
be aware of an aircraft's hazardous materials?

Participation at the Public Meetings

    Attendance is open to the public. Speakers should be prepared to
limit their oral remarks to 10 minutes in the event the number of
speakers exceeds the time allocated in the agenda.

Public Meeting Procedures

    A panel of representatives from the FAA and PHMSA will be present.
An FAA representative will facilitate the meetings in accordance with
the following procedures:
    (1) The meetings are designed to facilitate the public comment
process. The meetings will be informal and non-adversarial. No
individual will be subject to questioning by any other participant.
Government representatives on the panel may ask questions to clarify
statements. Any statement made during the meetings by a panel member
should not be construed as an official position of the government.
    a. One exception is that, time permitting, attendees may be allowed
to ask questions following the FAA Air Traffic Control Organization's
Briefing on the Flight Object Initiative.
    (2) There will be no admission fees or other charges to attend or
to participate in the public meeting. The meeting will be open to all
persons, subject to the capacity in the meeting room and the web-
conferencing system. Every effort will be made to accommodate all
persons wishing to attend. The FAA and PHMSA will try to accommodate
all speakers, subject to time constraints. The FAA and PHMSA reserve
the right to exclude some speakers, if necessary, to obtain balanced
viewpoints.
    (1) The FAA and PHMSA will review and consider all material
presented by participants at the public meeting. If the speaker wishes
to provide handouts to attendees, these materials shall be provided by
speaker.
    (2) Presentations, supplemental data, and other information may be
provided to FAA and PHMSA at the discretion of the participant.
    (3) Each person presenting comments is asked to submit data to
support the comments. The FAA and PHMSA will protect from disclosure
all proprietary data submitted in accordance with applicable laws.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 18, 2011.
Christopher Glasow,
Director, Office of Hazardous Materials.
[FR Doc. 2011-4237 Filed 2-28-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 182 (Friday, September 18, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 58315-58319]
[FR Doc No: 2020-20612]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2016-0321; FRL-10014-55-Region 5]

Air Plan Approval; Michigan; Partial Approval and Partial
Disapproval of the Detroit SO2 Nonattainment Area Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
partially approve and partially disapprove a revision to the Michigan
State Implementation Plan (SIP) for attaining the 2010 1-hour primary
sulfur dioxide (SO2) national ambient air quality standard
(NAAQS or ``standard'') for the Detroit SO2 nonattainment
area (NAA). This SIP revision (hereinafter called the ``Detroit
SO2 plan'' or ``plan'') includes Michigan's attainment
demonstration and other elements required under the Clean Air Act
(CAA). EPA is proposing to approve the base year emissions inventory,
and to affirm that the nonattainment new source review (NNSR)
requirements for the area have been met. EPA is proposing to disapprove
the attainment demonstration, as well as the requirements for meeting
reasonable further progress (RFP) toward attainment of the NAAQS,
reasonably available control measures and reasonably available control
technology (RACM/RACT), and contingency measures. Finally, EPA is
proposing to disapprove the plan's control measures for two facilities
as not demonstrating attainment, and is proposing to approve the
enforceable control measures for two facilities as SIP strengthening.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 19, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2016-0321 at http://www.regulations.gov, or via email to
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>For comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted,
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either
manner of submission, 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. 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, please contact the person
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For 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/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sarah Arra, Environmental Scientist,
Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-
18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
The EPA Region 5 office is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, excluding Federal holidays and facility closures due to
COVID 19.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

I. Why was Michigan required to submit a plan for the Detroit SO2
nonattainment area?

    On June 22, 2010, EPA promulgated a new 1-hour primary
SO2 NAAQS of 75 parts per billion (ppb). This standard is
met at an ambient air quality monitoring site when the 3-year average
of the annual 99th percentile of daily maximum 1-hour average
concentrations does not exceed 75 ppb, as determined in accordance with
appendix T of 40 CFR part 50.\1\ On August 5, 2013, EPA designated a
first set of 29 areas of the country as nonattainment for the 2010
SO2 NAAQS, including the Detroit SO2 NAA within
Michigan.\2\ These area designations became effective on October 4,
2013. Section 191(a) of the CAA directs states to submit SIPs for areas
designated as nonattainment for the SO2 NAAQS (hereinafter
called ``plans'' or ``nonattainment plans'') to EPA within 18 months of
the effective date of the designation, i.e., by no later than April 4,
2015 in this case. Under CAA section 192(a), these plans are required
to have measures that will provide for attainment of the NAAQS as
expeditiously as practicable, but no later than five years from the
effective date of designation, i.e., October 4, 2018, for the Detroit
SO2 NAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 75 FR 35520, codified at 40 CFR 50.17(a)-(b).
    \2\ 78 FR 47191, codified at 40 CFR part 81, subpart C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the requirement for SO2 nonattainment
plan submittals, Michigan submitted the Detroit SO2 plan on
May 31, 2016 and submitted associated final enforceable measures on
June 30, 2016.
    For a number of NAAs, including the Detroit area, EPA published an
action on March 18, 2016, effective April 18, 2016, finding that
Michigan and other pertinent states had failed to submit the required
SO2 nonattainment plan by the submittal deadline. See 81 FR
14736. This finding initiated a deadline under CAA section 179(a) for
the potential imposition of new source review offset and highway
funding sanctions. Additionally, under CAA section 110(c), the finding
triggered a requirement that the EPA promulgate a Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) within two years of the finding unless, by
that time (a) the state had made the necessary complete submittal and
(b) EPA had approved the submittal as meeting applicable requirements.
Michigan's May 31, 2016 submittal was deemed administratively complete
six months after its submission to EPA, which stopped the sanctions
clock per EPA's sanctions regulations at 40 CFR 52.31 but did not stop
the FIP clock.
    For reasons described in the following sections, EPA is proposing
to disapprove portions of the Detroit attainment plan. Finalization of
this action will start a new sanctions clock which can be stopped only
if the conditions of EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 52.31 are met. Only a
full SIP approval or EPA's promulgation of a FIP can stop FIP clocks,
so this action does not have any effect on the FIP clock that started
April 18, 2016.
    The remainder of this preamble describes the requirements that
nonattainment plans must meet in order to obtain EPA approval, provides
a review of the Detroit SO2 plan with respect to these
requirements, and describes EPA's proposed action on the plan.

II. Requirements for Nonattainment Plans

    Nonattainment plans for SO2 must meet the applicable
requirements of the CAA, specifically CAA sections 110,

172, 191, and 192. EPA's regulations governing nonattainment SIP
submissions are set forth at 40 CFR part 51, with specific procedural
requirements and control strategy requirements codified at subparts F
and G, respectively. Soon after Congress enacted the 1990 Amendments to
the CAA, EPA issued comprehensive guidance on SIP revisions in the
``General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air
Act Amendments of 1990'' (``General Preamble'').\3\ Among other things,
the General Preamble addressed SO2 SIP submissions and
fundamental principles for SIP control strategies.\4\ On April 23,
2014, EPA issued recommended guidance for meeting the statutory
requirements in SO2 SIP submissions, in a document entitled,
``Guidance for 1-Hour SO2 Nonattainment Area SIP
Submissions'' (``2014 SO2 Guidance''). In the 2014
SO2 Guidance, EPA described the statutory requirements of
CAA section 172(c) for a complete nonattainment plan, including: An
accurate emissions inventory of current emissions for all sources of
SO2 within the NAA; an attainment demonstration; a
demonstration of RFP; implementation of RACM (including RACT); new
source review; enforceable emission limitations and control measures;
and adequate contingency measures for the affected area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992).
    \4\ Id. at 13548-13549, 13567-13568.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For EPA to fully approve a SIP revision as meeting the requirements
of CAA sections 110, 172, 191, and 192, and EPA's regulations at 40 CFR
part 51, the plan for an affected area must demonstrate to EPA's
satisfaction that each of the aforementioned requirements has been met.
Under CAA section 110(l), EPA may not approve a plan that would
interfere with any applicable requirement concerning NAAQS attainment
and RFP, or any other applicable requirement. Under CAA section 193, no
requirement in effect (or required to be adopted by an order,
settlement, agreement, or plan in effect before November 15, 1990) in
any area that is nonattainment for any air pollutant may be modified in
any manner unless it ensures equivalent or greater emission reductions
of such air pollutant.
    Sections 172(c)(1) and 172(c)(6) of the CAA direct states with
areas designated as nonattainment to demonstrate that the submitted
plan and the emissions limitations and control measures in it provide
for attainment of the NAAQS. 40 CFR part 51, subpart G further
delineates the control strategy requirements that plans must meet, and
EPA has long required that all SIPs and control strategies reflect four
fundamental principles of quantification, enforceability,
replicability, and accountability.\5\ SO2 nonattainment
plans must consist of two components: (1) Emission limits and other
control measures that ensure implementation of permanent, enforceable,
and necessary emission controls, and (2) a modeling analysis that meets
the requirements of 40 CFR part 51, appendix W and demonstrates that
these emission limits and control measures provide for timely
attainment of the primary SO2 NAAQS as expeditiously as
practicable, but no later than the attainment date for the affected
area. In cases where the necessary emission limits have not previously
been made a part of the state's SIP or have not otherwise become
federally enforceable, the plan needs to include the necessary
enforceable limits in an adopted form suitable for incorporation into
the SIP in order for the plan to be approved by EPA. In all cases, the
emission limits and control measures must be accompanied by appropriate
methods and conditions to determine compliance with the respective
emission limits and control measures and must be quantifiable (i.e., a
specific amount of emission reduction can be ascribed to the measures),
fully enforceable (i.e., specifying clear, unambiguous and measurable
requirements for which compliance can be practicably determined),
replicable (i.e., the procedures for determining compliance are
sufficiently specific and objective so that two independent entities
applying the procedures would obtain the same result), and accountable
(i.e., source specific limits must be permanent and must reflect the
assumptions used in the SIP demonstrations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Id. at 13567-13568.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA's 2014 SO2 Guidance recommends that the emission
limits be expressed as short-term average limits not to exceed the
averaging time for the applicable NAAQS that the limit is intended to
help maintain (e.g., addressing emissions averaged over one or three
hours), but it also describes the option to utilize emission limits
with longer averaging times of up to 30 days as long as the state meets
various suggested criteria.\6\ The 2014 SO2 Guidance
recommends that, should states and sources utilize longer averaging
times (such as 30 days), the longer-term average limit should be set at
an adjusted level that reflects a stringency comparable to the 1-hour
average limit at the critical emission value shown to provide for
attainment. Additional discussion of EPA's rationale for approving
longer term average limits in selected cases has been provided in
several notices of proposed rulemaking, for example for the Pekin,
Illinois area (see 82 FR 46434, Oct. 5, 2017), for the Steubenville,
Ohio-West Virginia area (see 84 FR 29456, June 24, 2019), and for the
Central New Hampshire area (see 82 FR 45242, Sep. 28, 2017)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 2014 SO2 Guidance, 22-39.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Preferred air quality models for use in regulatory applications are
described in appendix A of EPA's ``Guideline on Air Quality Models''
(40 CFR part 51, appendix W (``appendix W'')).\7\ In general,
nonattainment SIP submissions must demonstrate the adequacy of the
selected control strategy using the applicable air quality model
designated in appendix W.\8\ However, where an air quality model
specified in appendix W is inappropriate for the particular
application, the model may be modified or another model substituted, if
EPA approves the modification or substitution.\9\ In 2005, EPA
promulgated the American Meteorological Society/Environmental
Protection Agency Regulatory Model (AERMOD) as the Agency's preferred
near-field dispersion model for a wide range of regulatory applications
addressing stationary sources (e.g., in estimating SO2
concentrations) in all types of terrain based on an extensive
developmental and performance evaluation. Supplemental guidance on
modeling for purposes of demonstrating attainment of the SO2
standard is provided in appendix A of the 2014 SO2 Guidance.
Appendix A provides extensive guidance on the modeling domain, the
source inputs, assorted types of meteorological data, and background
concentrations. Consistency with the recommendations in the 2014
SO2 Guidance is generally necessary for the attainment
demonstration to offer adequately reliable assurance that the plan
provides for attainment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ EPA published revisions to appendix W on January 17, 2017,
82 FR 5182.
    \8\ 40 CFR 51.112(a)(1).
    \9\ 40 CFR 51.112(a)(2); appendix W, section 3.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated previously, attainment demonstrations for the 2010 1-hour
primary SO2 NAAQS must demonstrate future attainment and
maintenance of the NAAQS in the entire area designated as nonattainment
(i.e., not just at the violating monitor) by using air quality
dispersion modeling (see appendix W) to show that the mix of sources
and enforceable control

measures and emission rates in an identified area will not lead to a
violation of the SO2 NAAQS. For the short-term (i.e., 1-
hour) standard, EPA believes that dispersion modeling, using allowable
emissions and addressing stationary sources in the affected area (and
in some cases those sources located outside the NAA that may affect
attainment in the area) is technically appropriate. This approach is
also efficient and effective in demonstrating attainment in NAAs
because it takes into consideration combinations of meteorological and
source operating conditions that may contribute to peak ground-level
concentrations of SO2.
    The meteorological data used in the analysis should generally be
processed with the most recent version of AERMET, which is the
meteorological data preprocessor for AERMOD. Estimated concentrations
should include ambient background concentrations, follow the form of
the standard, and be calculated as described in EPA's August 23, 2010
clarification memorandum.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ ``Applicability of Appendix W Modeling Guidance for the 1-
hr SO2 National Ambient Air Quality Standard'' (August
23, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Review of Modeled Attainment Demonstration

    The majority of Michigan's submittal is a robust modeling
demonstration that includes an assessment of the air quality impacts
Michigan expected to result from emissions limitations governing the
following sources: U.S. Steel Ecorse, U.S. Steel Zug Island, EES Coke,
DTE Energy (DTE) River Rouge, DTE Trenton Channel, Carmeuse Lime, DTE
Monroe, Severstal Steel, Dearborn Industrial Generation (DIG), and
Marathon Refinery. From the base case modeling scenario, Michigan
determined that Carmeuse Lime was causing an isolated violation in the
model, and that U.S. Steel, DTE River Rouge, and DTE Trenton Channel
were all contributing to overlapping violations in locations separate
from the Carmeuse Lime violation. No other modeled sources were found
to be significantly contributing to the modeled violations. EPA found
the modeling to generally follow the modeling guidance and adhere to
the requirements in appendix W.
    Michigan ran a variety of control scenarios to determine a
reduction strategy for the area and submitted emission limitations for
Carmeuse Lime, DTE Trenton Channel, DTE River Rouge, and U.S. Steel.
Michigan submitted revised construction permits for Charmeuse Lime, DTE
Trenton Channel, and DTE River Rouge, each of which had been agreed to
by the source.

A. U.S. Steel Emission Limits

    Michigan was unsuccessful, however, in its efforts to implement
more stringent SO2 emission limits through a construction
permit with U.S. Steel. Ultimately, Michigan imposed the emission
limits it had concluded were necessary at U.S. Steel to bring the
Detroit area into attainment by passing Michigan Administrative Code
(MAC) 336.1430 (``Rule 430''). Michigan submitted Rule 430 to EPA as an
enforceable limitation element of its SO2 plan.
    Subsequently, U.S. Steel challenged the legality of Rule 430 in the
Michigan Court of Claims, which invalidated Rule 430 on October 4,
2017. United States Steel Corp. v. Dept. of Environmental Quality, No.
16-000202-MZ, 2017 WL 5974195 (Mich. Ct. Cl. Oct. 4, 2017).
    To date, Michigan has not submitted a substitute enforceable
emission limitation for the U.S. Steel facility. Because the State's
attainment demonstration relies on such a limitation, EPA must
disapprove the Detroit SO2 plan.

B. SIP Strengthening Additional Emission Limits

    As noted above, Michigan submitted revised permits with more
stringent emission limitations for three other facilities. Although EPA
is not able to approve any of these limitations as part of the state's
Detroit SO2 plan, EPA is proposing to approve two of these
three permits as SIP strengthening, which is appropriate for limits
that improve air quality but do not meet a specific CAA requirement.
    For Carmeuse Lime, on March 18, 2016, the State issued Permit to
Install 193-14A, which requires the construction of and venting of
emissions through a new stack. The permit also establishes a more
stringent, permanent, and enforceable SO2 limit. The State's
modeling indicates that the violation caused by Carmeuse is resolved by
this modification, which is well within EPA's regulatory definition of
``good engineering practice (GEP)'' per 40 CFR 51.100(ii)(1). Because
this enforceable emissions limitation will lessen ground-level impacts,
EPA is proposing to approve it as SIP strengthening.
    Similarly, EPA is proposing to approve as SIP strengthening the DTE
Trenton Channel permit (Permit to Install 125-11C).\11\ EPA modeling
demonstrates that attainment at violating receptors can be achieved
when the emission limits in the DTE Trenton Channel Permit are analyzed
together with those contained in a recently issued permit for the DTE
River Rouge facility (Permit to Install 40-08I).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Issued April 29, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With regard to the DTE River Rouge permit, Michigan submitted an
earlier version of that permit as part of its Detroit SO2
Plan.\12\ After EPA found an error in the long-term averaging
calculation for this permit, DTE corrected the error and, as noted
above, was issued a new permit. The 2020 permit has not been submitted
as part of the Detroit SO2 Plan, however, and is not before
EPA for consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Permit to Install 40-08H, issued on May 3, 2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, for the reasons explained above, EPA is proposing to
disapprove the attainment demonstration in the Detroit SO2
Plan pursuant to 172(c) and 192(a), specifically those elements of the
demonstration that rely on the invalidated Rule 430 and the superseded
2016 DTE River Rouge permit. EPA is proposing to approve the Carmeuse
Lime and DTE Trenton Channel construction permits as SIP strengthening.

IV. Review of Other Plan Requirements

A. Emissions Inventory

    The emissions inventory and source emission rate data for an area
serve as the foundation for air quality modeling and other analyses
that enable states to estimate the degree to which different sources
within a NAA contribute to violations within the affected area and
assess the expected improvement in air quality within the NAA due to
the adoption and implementation of control measures. The state must
develop and submit to EPA a comprehensive, accurate, and current
inventory of actual emissions from all sources of SO2
emissions in each NAA, as well as any sources located outside the NAA
that may affect attainment in the area.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ CAA section 172(c)(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The base year inventory establishes a baseline that is used to
evaluate emission reductions achieved by the control strategy and to
assess RFP requirements. Michigan used 2012 as the base year for
emissions inventory preparation. At the time of preparation of the
plan, 2012 reflected the most recent emissions data available to the
state through its annual emissions reporting requirements during
periods with air quality violations. The emissions inventory includes
all sources over a 100 tons per year (tpy) of SO2 emission
within the NAA, as well as a large source, DTE Monroe, outside the
nonattainment area. Table 1 summarizes

2012 base year SO2 emissions inventory data for the NAA,
categorized by emission source type (rounded to the nearest whole
number).

  Table 1--Summary of Base Year (2012) SO2 Emissions Inventory for the
                             Detroit SO2 NAA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Emissions
                         Source                                (tpy)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
River Rouge.............................................           8,203
Trenton Channel.........................................          22,426
Monroe..................................................          49,151
Carmeuse Lime...........................................             700
Severstal Steel.........................................             677
DIG.....................................................             598
Marathon................................................             137
U.S. Steel..............................................           2,874
EES Coke................................................           1,901
                                                         ---------------
    Total...............................................          86,666
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA has evaluated Michigan's 2012 base year inventory and finds
this inventory and the methodologies used for their development to be
consistent with EPA guidance. As a result, EPA is proposing to
determine that the Detroit SO2 plan meets the requirements
of CAA section 172(c)(3) and (4) for the Detroit SO2 NAA.

B. RACM and RACT and Enforceable Emission Limitations and Control
Measures

    CAA section 172(c)(1) states that nonattainment plans should
``provide for the implementation of all reasonably available control
measures as expeditiously as practicable (including such reductions in
emissions from existing sources in the area as may be obtained through
the adoption, at a minimum, of reasonably available control technology)
and shall provide for attainment of the national primary ambient air
quality standards.'' CAA section 172(c)(6) requires plans to ``include
enforceable emissions limitations, and such other control measures [. .
.] as may be necessary or appropriate to provide for attainment of [the
NAAQS].'' Because the Detroit plan is missing enforceable measures for
some major sources of SO2 and is therefore not able to
demonstrate attainment, the area does not demonstrate RACM/RACT or meet
the requirement for necessary emissions limitations or control
measures. EPA is therefore proposing that the State has not satisfied
the requirements in CAA sections 172(c)(1) and (6) to adopt and submit
all RACM/RACT and emissions limitations or control measures as needed
to attain the standard as expeditiously as practicable.

C. New Source Review

    Michigan has a fully approved NNSR Program. The program is set
forth in Part 19 of the Michigan SIP (MAC R 336.2901 through R
336.2908). This program was approved by EPA into the SIP on December
16, 2013 (78 FR 76064) and addresses nonattainment permitting
requirements for SO2 and other pollutants. Therefore, EPA is
proposing to affirm that the new source review requirements for the
area have been met.

D. Reasonable Further Progress

    EPA's policy, that RFP for SO2 may be satisfied by
``adherence to an ambitious compliance schedule,'' is based on the fact
that, ``for SO2 there is usually a single `step' between
pre-control nonattainment and post-control attainment.'' \14\ In this
instance, however, Michigan has not demonstrated that implementation of
the control measures required under the plan is sufficient to provide
for attainment of the NAAQS in the Detroit SO2 NAA. In the
absence of a demonstration that the required controls will lead to
attainment, a compliance schedule to implement these controls is not
sufficient to provide for RFP. Therefore, we propose to conclude that
the State has not satisfied the requirement in section 172(c)(2) to
provide for RFP toward attainment in the Detroit SO2 NAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ 2014 SO2 Guidance, 40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Contingency Measures

    In the Detroit SO2 plan, Michigan explained its
rationale for concluding that the plan meets the requirement for
contingency measures. Specifically, Michigan relied on the 2014
SO2 Guidance, which notes the special circumstances that
apply to SO2 and explains on that basis why the contingency
requirement in CAA section 172(c)(9) is met for SO2 by
having a comprehensive program to identify sources of violations of the
SO2 NAAQS and to undertake an aggressive follow-up for
compliance and enforcement of applicable emission limitations. Michigan
stated that it has such an enforcement program pursuant to section 5526
of part 55, Air Pollution Control, of the Natural Resources and
Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 451, as amended, Michigan
Compiled Laws 324.5526. Michigan also stated that its enforcement and
compliance authority is furthered by the State's Title V program, which
includes a compliance monitoring program, periodic inspections, review
of company monitoring records, reporting, and issuance of violation
notices for all violations shown from inspections or data. In addition,
Michigan stated that it responds promptly to citizen complaints,
reports all high priority violations to EPA, and puts all inspection
reports and violation notices on Michigan's website. Michigan concluded
that the plan satisfies contingency measure requirements under CAA
section 172(c)(9).
    Although we agree that the Michigan SIP establishes a comprehensive
enforcement program, allowing for the identification of sources of
SO2 NAAQS violations and aggressive compliance and
enforcement follow-up, EPA's policy that a comprehensive enforcement
program can satisfy the contingency measures requirement is premised on
the idea that full compliance with the controls required in the plan
will assure attainment. In this case, as explained above, Michigan's
plan lacks necessary enforceable measures at major sources of
SO2 and therefore cannot demonstrate attainment with the
NAAQS. Therefore, we propose that the State has not satisfied the
requirement in section 172(c)(9) to provide for contingency measures to
be undertaken if the area fails to make RFP or to attain NAAQS by the
attainment date.

F. Conformity

    Generally, as set forth in section 176(c) of the CAA, conformity
requires that actions by Federal agencies do not cause new air quality
violations, worsen existing violations, or delay timely attainment of
the relevant NAAQS. General conformity applies to Federal actions,
other than certain highway and transportation projects, if the action
takes place in a NAA or maintenance area (i.e., an area which submitted
a maintenance plan that meets the requirements of section 175A of the
CAA and has been redesignated to attainment) for ozone, particulate
matter, nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide, lead, or SO2.
EPA's General Conformity Rule establishes the criteria and procedures
for determining if a Federal action conforms to the SIP.\15\ With
respect to the 2010 SO2 NAAQS, Federal agencies are expected
to continue to estimate emissions for conformity analyses in the same
manner as they estimated emissions for conformity analyses under the
previous NAAQS for SO2. EPA's General Conformity Rule
includes the basic requirement that a Federal agency's general
conformity analysis be based on the latest and most accurate emission

estimation techniques available.\16\ When updated and improved emission
estimation techniques become available, EPA expects the Federal agency
to use these techniques.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 40 CFR 93.150 to 93.165.
    \16\ 40 CFR 93.159(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Transportation conformity determinations are not required in
SO2 nonattainment and maintenance areas. EPA concluded in
its 1993 transportation conformity rule that highway and transit
vehicles are not significant sources of SO2. Therefore,
transportation plans, transportation improvement programs, and projects
are presumed to conform to applicable implementation plans for
SO2.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ 58 FR 3768, 3776 (January 11, 1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing to approve the base year inventory and to affirm
that the new source review requirements for the area have been met. EPA
is also proposing to approve the DTE Trenton Channel and Carmeuse Lime
permits as SIP strengthening. EPA is proposing to disapprove the
attainment demonstration, as well as the requirement for meeting RFP
toward attainment of the NAAQS, RACM/RACT, contingency measures, the
invalidated Rule 430 related to U.S. Steel, and the superseded 2016
permit related to DTE River Rouge. Finalizing the proposed disapproval
will start new sanctions clocks for this area under CAA section 179(a)-
(b).

VI. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule
regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance
with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, EPA is proposing to incorporate by
reference two permits, Permit to Install 193-14A issued March 18, 2016
and Permit to Install 125-11C issued April 29, 2016. EPA has made, and
will continue to make, these documents generally available through
www.regulations.gov and at EPA Region 5 Office (please contact the
person identified in the For Further Information Contact section of
this preamble for more information).

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because it is not a significant regulatory
action under Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: September 14, 2020.
Kurt Thiede,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2020-20612 Filed 9-17-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 189 (Thursday, September 29, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 66826-66829]
[FR Doc No: 2016-23302]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0403; FRL-9953-05-Region 4]

Air Plan Approval; TN: Revisions to Logs and Reports for
Startups, Shutdowns and Malfunctions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Tennessee,
through the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation
(TDEC), on September 25, 2013. The SIP submittal includes a change to
the TDEC regulation ``Logs and Reports.'' EPA is approving this SIP
revision because it is consistent with the Clean Air Act (CAA

or Act) and federal regulations governing SIPs.

DATES: This rule will be effective October 31, 2016.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2015-0403. All documents in the docket
are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential
Business Information or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at the Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and
Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official
hours of business are Monday through Friday 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
excluding federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brad Akers, Air Regulatory Management
Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, Region 4, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 61
Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Mr. Akers can be
reached by telephone at<PHONE_NUMBER> or via electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. This Action

    EPA is approving a revision to the Tennessee SIP submitted by TDEC
on September 25, 2013. Specifically, the submittal includes a change to
remove the existing text of subparagraph (2) from Tennessee Air
Pollution Control Regulation (TAPCR) Rule 1200-3-20-.04, ``Logs and
Reports,'' and replace it with the word ``Reserved.'' Subparagraph (2)
provided that all sources located in or having a significant impact on
a nonattainment area submit a quarterly report to the Technical
Secretary of Tennessee's Air Pollution Control Board that: (1)
Identifies periods of startups, shutdowns, and/or malfunctions (SSM
events) that result in an exceedance of an emission limitation, (2)
estimates the excess emissions released during such SSM events, and (3)
provides total source emissions where such emissions are not otherwise
required to be reported under Tennessee Air Pollution Control
Regulations (TAPCR) Chapters 1200-3-10-.02 or 1200-3-16. EPA is
approving Tennessee's September 25, 2013, SIP revision because the
proposed revision is consistent with the requirements of the CAA and
federal regulations governing SIPs. EPA received no comments on the
July 27, 2016 (81 FR 49201), proposed rulemaking.

II. Background

A. Summary of the September 25, 2013, SIP Revision

    The CAA and rules governing SIPs in 40 CFR part 51 require
recordkeeping and reporting to ensure that sources are in compliance
with enforceable emission limits. Paragraph (2) of TAPCR Rule 1200-3-
20-.04 initially helped to satisfy these requirements by providing for
quarterly reports of excess emissions during SSM events, as well as
total quarterly emissions. Removing this paragraph eliminates a set of
requirements covering all source types, including major sources;
sources that restrain their ``potential to emit'' to a level that is
below the major source applicability threshold through the use of
emissions control, restriction on hours of operation, or other means
(``synthetic minor source''); and those sources for which potential
emissions are below the major source thresholds, even assuming no
emission controls and unlimited hours of operation (``true minor
sources''). Tennessee's September 25, 2013, SIP submittal demonstrates
that CAA requirements for recordkeeping and reporting will continue to
be met, as applicable, considering other federal and state regulations.
    Major sources in Tennessee are subject to title V of the CAA at 40
CFR part 70. This requires: (1) Sources to submit reports of any
required monitoring at least every six months at 40 CFR
70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), including all instances of deviations from permit
requirements; (2) an annual compliance certification at 40 CFR
70.6(c)(5); and (3) prompt reporting of deviations from permit
requirements at 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(B). TDEC has adopted these
requirements into its federally-approved title V operating permits
program at TAPCR Rule 1200-3-9-.02(11)(e)1(iii)(III)I, 1200-3-
9-.02(11)(e)3(v), and 1200-3-9-.02(11)(e)1(iii)(III)II, respectively.
    In addition to the title V reporting requirements, Tennessee's SIP
authorizes the Tennessee Air Pollution Control Board's Technical
Secretary to require enhanced reporting as needed to verify that a
``major stationary source'' is operating in compliance with applicable
requirements. See TAPCR Chapter 1200-3-10-.04(2). Likewise, Tennessee's
SIP at TAPCR Rule 1200-3-10-.02, ``Monitoring of Source Emissions,
Recording, Reporting of the Same are Required,'' at paragraph (1)(a)
states: ``The Technical Secretary may require the owner or operator of
any air contaminant source discharging air contaminants . . . to . . .
make periodic emission reports as required in paragraph (2).''
Paragraph (2)(a) clarifies that ``[r]ecords and reports as the
Technical Secretary shall prescribe,'' must be collected and submitted.
Finally, TAPCR Rule 1200-3-20-.08, ``Special Reports Required,'' states
that the Technical Secretary ``may require any air contaminant source
to submit a report within thirty (30) days after the end of each
calendar quarter'' containing dates and details of any SSM events and
resultant emissions in excess of applicable limitations. Thus, the SIP
contains provisions that allow TDEC to collect reports similar to those
in TAPCR 1200-3-20-.04(2) when deemed necessary to determine a source's
compliance with applicable requirements. TAPCR 1200-3-20-.04(1),
requiring sources to collect and maintain records regarding SSM events
and resultant excess emissions, also remains in effect.
    Regarding total emissions, the State is also required to report to
EPA triennial reports of annual (12-month) emissions for all sources
and every-year reports of annual emissions of criteria air pollutants
and their precursors for all major sources as well as annual emissions
reporting from certain larger sources. See subpart A to 40 CFR part 51,
the ``Air Emissions Reporting Requirements,'' or ``AERR.'' Further
details are provided in the July 27, 2016, proposed rule.
    Synthetic minor sources, in accordance with SIP-approved TAPCR
1200-3-9-.02(11)(a), are subject to an enforceable limit restricting
potential to emit and must implement ``detailed monitoring, reporting
and recordkeeping requirements that prove the source is abiding by its
more restrictive emission and/or production limits.'' TDEC's synthetic
minor permits require: (1) Prompt reporting of any non-compliance with
permit conditions designed to restrict ``potential to emit'' below the
major source level (the ``synthetic minor limit''), (2) submission of
an annual compliance certification supported by records documenting the

facility's compliance with its synthetic minor limit, and (3) reporting
of excess emissions due to malfunctions in accordance with TAPCR
Chapter 1200-3-20-.03. Thus, Tennessee can determine compliance with
the applicable permit conditions for synthetic minor sources.
    Reserving paragraph TAPCR 1200-3-20-.04(2) eliminates the
requirement that true minor sources report excess emissions and total
emissions to the State. There is no general federal requirement for
true minor sources to directly report their emissions to the state or
to EPA. The State explains in its submittal that true minor sources
were never intended to be required to make these types of reports, but
that the regulated community has expanded to include many smaller
sources since the Rule's adoption in the TAPCR in 1979. Total emissions
from true minor sources are still considered, either in aggregate or
via specific reporting. True minor sources with emissions of oxides of
nitrogen or volatile organic compounds above 25 tons per year (tpy)
report total emissions annually to the State in ozone nonattainment
areas, pursuant to TAPCR 1200-3-18-.02(8). Additionally, the AERR
requires the state to report emissions from sources at lower thresholds
for select criteria air pollutants or precursors in certain
nonattainment areas, which may include true minor sources. The AERR
also provides for reporting of lead emissions greater than or equal to
0.5 tpy, regardless of an area's attainment status with respect to the
lead NAAQS. Otherwise, emissions from true minor sources are reported
to EPA in aggregate in accordance with the AERR. Finally, Tennessee
noted the Technical Secretary's authority under 1200-3-10-.02(1)(a) to
collect reports from ``any air contaminant source.'' TDEC explains that
if there were a reason to think a true minor source was impacting air
quality standards, the Division of Air Pollution Control could collect
these reports of emissions.
    The combination of federal reporting requirements, reporting
requirements under Tennessee's SIP, and Tennessee's authority to
request additional information on source emissions when necessary,
provide that Tennessee's September 25, 2013, SIP revision does not
impair Tennessee's ability to determine the nature and amount of
emissions from both major and minor sources and whether such sources
are operating in compliance with Tennessee's SIP. Accordingly, EPA's
final approval of Tennessee's September 25, 2013, SIP revision is
consistent with the minimum SIP requirements pertaining to
enforceability and emissions reporting. For more information, see the
July 27, 2016, proposed rule (81 FR 49201). EPA received no comments on
the proposed rulemaking.

B. SSM SIP Call Considerations

    In this action, EPA is not approving or disapproving revisions to
any existing emission limitations that apply during SSM events. EPA
notes that on June 12, 2015 (80 FR 33840), the Agency published a
formal finding that a number of states have SIPs with SSM provisions
that are contrary to the CAA and existing EPA guidance. Accordingly,
EPA issued a formal ``SIP call'' requiring the affected states to make
a SIP submission to correct the deficient SSM regulations. Id. In that
final action, EPA determined that TAPCR Chapter 1200-3-20 has
provisions that are contrary to the CAA, specifically paragraph (1) of
Rule 1200-3-20-.07, ``Report Required upon the Issuance of Notice of
Violation.'' This final action only deals with the deletion of a
separate reporting requirement which is reasonably covered by other
requirements, and does not impact the provision of the Tennessee Rule
implicated in the SSM SIP call, this proposed action does not
contradict the finding of inadequacy regarding TAPCR 1200-3-20-.07(1).

III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of TAPCR 1200-3-
20-.04, entitled ``Logs and Reports,'' effective June 19, 2013, which
removed a quarterly reporting requirement for total emissions and for
excess emissions during SSM. Therefore, these materials have been
approved by EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by
reference by EPA into that plan, are fully federally-enforceable under
sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the effective date of the final
rulemaking of EPA's approval, and will be incorporated by reference by
the Director of the Federal Register in the next update to the SIP
compilation.\1\ EPA has made, and will continue to make, these
materials generally available through www.regulations.gov and/or at the
EPA Region 4 Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more
information).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Final Action

    EPA is taking final action to approve the September 25, 2013,
Tennessee SIP revision. This final approval includes the section 110(l)
demonstration that modifying the SIP to remove TAPCR 1200-3-20-.04(2)
will not interfere with attainment or maintenance of any NAAQS or with
any other applicable requirement of the CAA, and the demonstration that
the SIP revision is consistent with section 193 of the Act because it
does not address any emissions reduction or emissions control
requirement and will have no effect on the emissions of any air
pollutant.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does
not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by November 28, 2016. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: September 15, 2016.
Kenneth R. Lapierre,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart RR--Tennessee

0
2. In Sec.  52.2220, table 1 in paragraph (c) is amended by revising
the entry for ``Section 1200-3-20-.04'' to read as follows:

Sec.  52.2220   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *

                                   Table 1--EPA-Approved Tennessee Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             State
          State citation              Title/subject     effective date   EPA approval date       Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Chapter 1200-3-20 Limits on Emissions Due to Malfunctions, Start-Ups, and Shutdowns
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Section 1200-3-20-.04............  Logs and reports...       6/19/2013  9/29/2016, [Insert   ...................
                                                                         Federal Register
                                                                         citation].

                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2016-23302 Filed 9-28-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 142 (Monday, July 25, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48331-48333]
[FR Doc No: 2016-17440]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket No. USCG-2016-0363]
RIN 1625-AA87

Security Zone, Delaware River, Schuylkill River; Philadelphia, PA

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary Final Rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing temporary security zones in
the waters of the Delaware River, Schuylkill River, and Darby Creek, in
Philadelphia, PA. These temporary zones are intended to restrict
vessels from portions of the Delaware River, Schuylkill River, and
Darby Creek during the Democratic National Convention from July 25,
2016, to July 29, 2016. During the enforcement period, no unauthorized
vessels or people will be permitted to enter or move within the
security zone without permission from the Captain of the Port or his
designated representative. This security zone is necessary to provide
security for the Democratic National Convention.

DATES: This rule is effective from 11:00 a.m. on July 25, 2016, to 1:00
a.m. on July 29, 2016.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2016-0363 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email Petty Officer Tom Simkins, U.S. Coast Guard, Sector
Delaware Bay, Waterways Management Division, Coast Guard; telephone
(215)271-4851, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

CFR Code of Federal Regulations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
U.S.C. United States Code
COTP Captain of the Port

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior
notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section
4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because the final details for the Democratic
National Convention were not known until July 12, 2016. Delaying the
effective date by first publishing an NPRM and holding a comment period
would be contrary to the rule's objectives of ensuring safety of life
on the navigable waters and protection of the Democratic Nation
Convention and the accompanying high-ranking government officials.
    For similar reasons, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard
finds that good cause exists for making this temporary rule effective
less than 30 days after publication in the Federal Register.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C.
1231. The Captain of the Port, Delaware Bay has determined that these
temporary security zones are necessary to provide for the security of
the Democratic Nation Convention and the accompanying high-ranking
government officials, and to protect against sabotage or terrorist
attacks to human life, vessels, mariners, and waterfront facilities at
or near this event.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    The Democratic National Convention will take place in Philadelphia,
PA from July 25, 2016 until July 29, 2016. During this event many high-
ranking government officials will be arriving in Philadelphia, PA. The
Coast Guard is establishing several security zones in portions of the
Delaware River, Schuylkill River, and Darby Creek in Philadelphia, PA.
    The first security zone includes all the waters of the Delaware
River from the New Jersey shore line, to the Pennsylvania shore line,
beginning at the west end of Little Tinicum Island extending in a
Northeasterly direction and ending at the mouth of the Schuylkill
River;
    The second security zone includes all the waters of the Schuylkill
River inside a boundary described as 500 yards south of the I-95 Bridge
and ending 500 yards north of the George C. Platt Memorial Bridge.

    The third security zone includes all waters of Darby Creek inside a
boundary described as originating from 500 yards south of the Conrail
Railroad Bridge and ending 100 yards north of the I-95 Bridge.
    Access to this security zone will be restricted while the zone is
being enforced. Only vessels or people specifically authorized by the
Captain of the Port, Delaware Bay, or his designated representative may
enter or remain in the regulated area. These security zones will be
enforced with actual notice by the United States Coast Guard
representatives on scene, as well as other methods listed in 33 CFR
165.7.

V. Regulatory Analyses

    We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and
executive orders (Executive Orders) related to rulemaking. Below we
summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and
Executive Orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing
rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated
a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866.
Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and
Budget.
    This regulatory action determination is based on the size,
location, duration, and time-of-year of the security zone. Vessel
traffic will be able to safely transit around this security zone which
will impact a small designated area of the Delaware River, Schuylkill
River, and Darby Creek in Philadelphia, PA for less than 12 hours.
Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notice to Mariners via
VHF-FM marine channel 16 identifying the security zone locations and
describing the process in which vessels can request permission to
transit the security zones.

B. Impact on Small Entities

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as
amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of
regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term ``small
entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations
that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their
fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than
50,000 The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities.
    While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the
security zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section
V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any
vessel owner or operator.
    Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small
entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your
small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have
questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please
contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
    Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal
employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal
regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory
Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory
Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and
rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to
comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR
(1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small
entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or
action of the Coast Guard.

C. Collection of Information

    This rule calls for no new collection of information under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

    A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have
determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism
principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order
13132.
    Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive
Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on
one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If
you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes,
please contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section above.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538)
requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary
regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may
result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in
the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for
inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in
such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere
in this preamble.

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this
action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
rule involves three security zones which will be enforced for less than
12 hours at any one time and includes all the waters of the Delaware
River from the New Jersey shore line, to the Pennsylvania shore line,
beginning at the west end of Little Tinicum Island extending in a
Northeasterly direction and ending at the mouth of the Schuylkill
River; all the waters of the Schuylkill River inside a boundary
described as 500 yards south of the I-95 bridge and ending 500 yards
north of the George C. Platt Memorial Bridge; and all waters of Darby
Creek inside a boundary described as 500 yards south of the Darby Creek
Railroad Bridge and ending 100 yards north of the I-95 Bridge.
    It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph
34(g) of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental
analysis checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical
Exclusion Determination are available in the

docket where indicated under ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or
information that may lead to the discovery of a significant
environmental impact from this rule.

G. Protest Activities

    The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters.
Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to coordinate protest activities so that
your message can be received without jeopardizing the safety or
security of people, places or vessels.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

    Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends
33 CFR part 165 as follows:

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

0
1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-
1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No.
0170.1.

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T05-0363 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T05-0363  Security Zone; Delaware River, and Schuylkill
River; Philadelphia, PA.

    (a) Location. The following areas are security zones:
    (1) The first security zone includes all the waters of the Delaware
River from the New Jersey shore line, to the Pennsylvania shore line,
beginning at the est end of Little Tinicum Island extending in a
Northeasterly direction and ending at the mouth of the Schuylkill
River;
    (2) The second security zone includes all the waters of the
Schuylkill River inside a boundary described as 500 yards south of the
I-95 Bridge and ending 500 yards north of the George C. Platt Memorial
Bridge.
    (3) The third security zone includes all waters of Darby Creek
inside a boundary described as originating 500 yards south of the
Conrail Railroad Bridge and ending 100 yards north of the I-95 Bridge.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section, designated representative
means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain,
petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel; as well
as a Federal, State, and local officer designated by or assisting the
Captain of the Port, Delaware Bay in the enforcement of the security
zone.
    (c) Regulations. (1) Under the general security zone regulations in
subpart D of this part, no person or vessel may enter the security zone
described in paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the
COTP or the COTP's designated representative.
    (2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's
representative on VHF-FM channel 16. Those in the security zone must
comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP
or the COTP's designated representative.
    (d) Enforcement period: This rule is effective from 11:00 a.m. on
July 25, 2016, to 1:00 a.m. on July 29, 2016.

    Dated: July 19, 2016.
Benjamin A. Cooper,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Delaware Bay.
[FR Doc. 2016-17440 Filed 7-22-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P