[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 250 (Thursday, December 30, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 82246-82254]
[FR Doc No: 2010-32784]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0107; FRL-9245-3]
RIN 2060-AQ45

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is establishing a federal implementation plan (FIP) to
apply in each of seven states that have not submitted by their
established deadline a corrective state implementation plan (SIP)
revision to apply their Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) program to sources of greenhouse gases
(GHGs). This action will ensure that a permitting authority--EPA--is
available in these states as of January 2, 2011, when PSD becomes
applicable to GHG-emitting sources, to issue preconstruction PSD
permits and thereby facilitate construction or expansion. The seven
states are: Arizona: Both Pinal County and Rest of State (excluding
Maricopa County, Pima County, and Indian Country), Arkansas, Florida,
Idaho, Kansas, Oregon, and Wyoming. This action is related to EPA's
recently promulgated final rule, published on December 13, 2010, which
we call the GHG PSD SIP call, and in which EPA made a finding of
substantial inadequacy and issued a SIP call for these seven states and
several others on grounds that their SIPs do not apply the PSD program
to GHG-emitting sources.

DATES: This action is effective on December 30, 2010.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Cheryl Vetter, Air Quality Policy
Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (C504-03),
Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711;
telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For information related to a specific state, local, or tribal
permitting authority, please contact the appropriate EPA regional
office:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Contact for regional
                                 office (person,
     EPA regional office        mailing address,    Permitting authority
                                telephone number)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I...........................  Dave Conroy, Chief,   Connecticut,
                               Air Programs          Massachusetts,
                               Branch, EPA Region    Maine, New
                               1, 5 Post Office      Hampshire, Rhode
                               Square, Suite 100,    Island, and Vermont
                               Boston, MA 02109-
                               3912, (617) 918-
                               1661.
II..........................  Raymond Werner,       New Jersey, New
                               Chief, Air Programs   York, Puerto Rico,
                               Branch, EPA Region    and Virgin Islands.
                               2, 290 Broadway,
                               25th Floor, New
                               York, NY 10007-
                               1866, (212) 637-
                               3706.
III.........................  Kathleen Cox, Chief,  District of
                               Permits and           Columbia, Delaware,
                               Technical             Maryland,
                               Assessment Branch,    Pennsylvania,
                               EPA Region 3, 1650    Virginia, and West
                               Arch Street,          Virginia.
                               Philadelphia, PA
                               19103-2029, (215)
                               814-2173.
IV..........................  Lynorae Benjamin,     Alabama, Florida,
                               Chief, Regulatory     Georgia, Kentucky,
                               Development           Mississippi, North
                               Section, Air,         Carolina, South
                               Pesticides and        Carolina, and
                               Toxics Management     Tennessee.
                               Division, EPA
                               Region 4, Atlanta
                               Federal Center, 61
                               Forsyth Street, SW,
                               Atlanta, GA 30303-
                               3104, (404) 562-
                               9033.
V...........................  J. Elmer Bortzer,     Illinois, Indiana,
                               Chief, Air Programs   Michigan,
                               Branch (AR-18J),      Minnesota, Ohio,
                               EPA Region 5, 77      and Wisconsin.
                               West Jackson
                               Boulevard, Chicago,
                               IL 60604-3507,
<PHONE_NUMBER>.
VI..........................  Jeff Robinson,        Arkansas, Louisiana,
                               Chief, Air Permits    New Mexico,
                               Section, EPA Region   Oklahoma, and
                               6, Fountain Place     Texas.
                               12th Floor, Suite
                               1200, 1445 Ross
                               Avenue, Dallas, TX
                               75202-2733, (214)
                               665-6435.
VII.........................  Mark Smith, Chief,    Iowa, Kansas,
                               Air Permitting and    Missouri, and
                               Compliance Branch,    Nebraska.
                               EPA Region 7, 901
                               North 5th Street,
                               Kansas City, KS
                               66101, (913) 551-
                               7876.
VIII........................  Carl Daly, Unit       Colorado, Montana,
                               Leader, Air           North Dakota, South
                               Permitting,           Dakota, Utah, and
                               Monitoring &          Wyoming.
                               Modeling Unit, EPA
                               Region 8, 1595
                               Wynkoop Street,
                               Denver, CO 80202-
                               1129, (303) 312-
                               6416.
IX..........................  Gerardo Rios, Chief,  Arizona, California,
                               Permits Office, EPA   Hawaii and the
                               Region 9, 75          Pacific Islands,
                               Hawthorne Street,     Indian Country
                               San Francisco, CA     within Region 9 and
                               94105, (415) 972-     Navajo Nation, and
                               3974.                 Nevada.
X...........................  Nancy Helm, Manager,  Alaska, Idaho,
                               Federal and           Oregon, and
                               Delegated Air         Washington.
                               Programs Unit, EPA
                               Region 10, 1200
                               Sixth Avenue, Suite
                               900, Seattle, WA
                               98101, (206) 553-
                               6908.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Entities affected by this rule include the seven state and local
permitting authorities \1\ identified by EPA to have not submitted by
their deadline a SIP revision that would apply PSD requirements to GHG-
emitting sources. In the GHG PSD SIP call,\2\ EPA determined that these
seven states have SIPs that are substantially inadequate to achieve CAA
requirements because their PSD programs do not apply to GHG-emitting
sources, and EPA established that deadline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

B. How is the preamble organized?

    The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:

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

II. Overview of Rulemaking

    In this rulemaking, EPA is establishing a FIP, which we call the
GHG PSD FIP, or simply, the FIP, to apply in each of seven states that
have not submitted by December 22, 2010, a corrective SIP revision to
apply their CAA PSD program to sources of GHGs. This is the deadline
EPA established after the affected states indicated that they would not
object to it, to ensure that a permitting authority would be in place
as of January 2, 2011 to facilitate issuance of PSD permits for
construction and modification of sources.
    This preamble should be read in conjunction with the preamble for
the proposed rulemaking for this action, which we call the GHG PSD FIP
proposal or the FIP proposal; \4\ and the SIP call rulemaking that is
associated with this rulemaking, including (i) the proposed SIP call
rulemaking, which we call the GHG PSD SIP call proposal or the SIP call
proposal, and which accompanied the FIP proposal,\5\ and (ii) the final
SIP call rulemaking, which we call the GHG PSD SIP call or the SIP
call. Background information for this

rulemaking is found in those rulemakings and in the rulemakings
referenced therein and will not be reiterated here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Action to Ensure Authority to Issue Permits under the
Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program to Sources of
Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Federal Implementation Plan--Proposed
rule, 75 FR 53883 (September 2, 2010).
    \5\ Action to Ensure Authority to Issue Permits under the
Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program to Sources of
Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Finding of Substantial Inadequacy and SIP
Call--Proposed rule, 75 FR 53892 (September 2, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By notices dated September 2, 2010, EPA published as companion
actions the SIP call proposal and the FIP proposal. In the SIP call
proposal, EPA proposed to find that 13 states with EPA-approved SIP PSD
programs are substantially inadequate to meet CAA requirements because
they do not appear to apply PSD requirements to GHG-emitting sources.
For each of these states, EPA proposed to require the state (through a
SIP call) to revise its SIP as necessary to correct such inadequacies.
In the FIP proposal, EPA proposed a FIP to apply in any state that is
unable to submit, by its deadline, a corrective SIP revision to apply
the PSD program to sources of GHGs. The FIP would provide authority to
EPA to issue PSD permits for construction or modification of
appropriate GHG sources in the state.
    On December 1, 2010, EPA promulgated the GHG PSD SIP call, and EPA
published it by notice dated December 13, 2010.\6\ In the SIP call, EPA
finalized its finding that the SIPs of 13 states (comprising 15 state
and local programs) are substantially inadequate to meet CAA
requirements because they do not apply PSD requirements to GHG-emitting
sources. In addition, EPA finalized a SIP call for each of these
states, which required the state to revise its SIP as necessary to
correct such inadequacies. Further, EPA established a deadline for each
state to submit its corrective SIP revision. These deadlines, which
differed among the states, ranged from December 22, 2010, to December
1, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Action to Ensure Authority to Issue Permits Under the
Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program to Sources of
Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Finding of Substantial Inadequacy and SIP
Call--Final Rule, 75 FR 77698 (December 13, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Seven states received a SIP submittal deadline of December 22,
2010, based on information received from each state during the public
comment period that they would not object to this deadline. These seven
states are: (1) Arizona: Both Pinal County and Rest of State (excluding
Maricopa County, Pima County, and Indian Country); \7\ (2) Arkansas;
(3) Florida; (4) Idaho; (5) Kansas; (6) Oregon; and (7) Wyoming.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ EPA issued to Arizona a separate finding of substantial
inadequacy, SIP call, and deadline for SIP submittal for each of
Pinal County and for the rest of the state (excluding Maricopa
County, Pima County, and Indian Country).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 23, 2010, EPA issued a finding under CAA section
110(c)(1)(A) that each of the seven states ``failed to make [the]
required submission'' of the corrective SIP call-mandated SIP revision
by its December 22, 2010 deadline. EPA notified each state of the
finding by letter. Those letters are located in the docket for this
rulemaking.

III. Final Action and Response to Comments

A. Authority To Promulgate a FIP

    In this rulemaking, EPA is finalizing the GHG PSD FIP as proposed
for each of the seven states: (1) Arizona: Both Pinal County and Rest
of State (excluding Maricopa County Pima County, and Indian Country);
\8\ (2) Arkansas; (3) Florida; (4) Idaho; (5) Kansas; (6) Oregon; and
(7) Wyoming.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ In this rulemaking, EPA is finalizing for Arizona a separate
GHG PSD FIP for each of Pinal County and for the rest of the state
(excluding Maricopa County, Pima County, and Indian Country).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CAA authority for EPA to promulgate a FIP is found in CAA
section 110(c)(1), which provides--

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

    As noted earlier in this preamble, on December 23, 2010, EPA issued
a finding that each of the seven states affected by this rule ``failed
to make [the] required submission'' of the corrective SIP call-mandated
SIP revision by its December 22, 2010 deadline. Accordingly, under CAA
section 110(c)(1), EPA is required to promulgate a FIP for each of the
states.
    It should be noted that EPA specifically proposed the FIP for six
of the seven states affected by this rulemaking, all except for
Wyoming. EPA did not include Wyoming among the states for which EPA
specifically proposed the SIP call, and, as a result, did not include
Wyoming among the states for which EPA specifically proposed the FIP.
However, in the proposed SIP call, EPA stated that it was soliciting
comment on all the other states, and, if EPA received information
indicating that another state should receive the SIP call, then EPA
would, without a supplemental or further proposal, issue a final SIP
call for that other state.\9\ Similarly, EPA stated in the FIP proposal
that if EPA issued a SIP call for that other state, and the other state
did not submit a corrective SIP revision by its deadline, then, EPA
would finalize the FIP for that other state, too.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Action to Ensure Authority to Issue Permits under the
Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program to Sources of
Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Finding of Substantial Inadequacy and SIP
Call--Proposed rule, 75 FR 53,895-6 (September 2, 2010).
    \10\ Action to Ensure Authority to Issue Permits under the
Prevention of Significant Deterioration Program to Sources of
Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Federal Implementation Plan--Proposed
rule, 75 FR 53,886 (September 2, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We reiterate that each of the seven states affected by this
rulemaking specifically indicated to EPA that it preferred that EPA
promulgate a FIP to take effect by January 2, 2011--when sources in the
state become subject to PSD--rather than EPA not promulgate a FIP until
a later time. This is because each state sought to assure that, as of
January 2, 2011, a permitting authority for GHG-emitting sources would
be in place in the state. These states made this choice by indicating
that they did not object to EPA establishing a SIP submittal date of
December 22, 2010, when EPA made clear in the proposed SIP call and FIP
that if the state did not submit the required SIP revision by that
date, then EPA would promulgate the FIP the next day. 75 FR at 53904/2
(proposed SIP call); id. at 53889/2 (proposed FIP). For the most part,
the remaining states that were subject to the SIP call indicated a
later SIP submittal date, but they believe that although this will mean
a short delay in the availability of a permitting authority for GHG-
emitting sources in their state, that delay will not adversely affect
their sources. EPA regional and headquarters officials conferred
extensively with state officials concerning the states' progress and
plans and with the National Association of Clean Air Agencies.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Declaration of Gina McCarthy, ]]4-5, pp. 3-4, ``EPA's
Response To Motions To Stay,'' Coalition for Responsible Regulation
v. EPA, No. 09-1322 (and consolidated cases) (McCarthy Declaration).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this rulemaking, EPA is not taking final action to promulgate a
FIP for any of the other states which EPA included in the FIP proposal.
This is because for each of the other states, either EPA did not
finalize the SIP call or EPA did finalize the SIP call but established
a SIP submittal deadline that has not yet arrived. As a result, EPA has
not issued a finding of failure to submit the required SIP revision for
any of these other states. It continues to be EPA's intent that if any
of these other states does not submit the required SIP revision by its
deadline, then EPA will immediately issue a finding of failure to
submit a required SIP submission and immediately promulgate a GHG PSD
FIP for that state.
    In comments received, some commenters stated, ``Remarkably, EPA
states that it will also directly promulgate a SIP call and FIP for any

states it has inadvertently omitted from its notice of proposed
rulemaking.'' Although the commenters do not elaborate upon this
statement, they seem to imply that it would be improper for EPA to
finalize a FIP for such states because we did not provide adequate
notice and opportunity for comment.
    The only state for which this comment may be relevant is Wyoming,
as noted earlier in this preamble. We disagree with the commenters. In
the proposal, we listed the states with approved SIP PSD programs for
which we were not proposing a finding of substantial inadequacy and a
SIP call, and so were not proposing a FIP. But we went on to
specifically solicit comment on whether each of those states merited a
finding, SIP call,\12\ and, ultimately, a FIP; and we included
citations to the relevant SIP provisions.\13\ Moreover, we generally
described the circumstances under which those states may merit a FIP.
As a result, commenters had adequate notice that EPA could ultimately
finalize a FIP for those states if and when they missed their SIP
submittal deadlines, and they had full opportunity to comment if they
had relevant views or information. This was discussed in greater detail
in the SIP call rulemaking 75 FR at 77715/6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ During the comment period, Wyoming did send information
indicating that, in Wyoming's view, Wyoming did not have legal
authority to apply PSD to GHG-emitting sources and therefore Wyoming
should be included in the SIP call. A Wyoming environmental group
provided comments during the comment period saying that it believed
Wyoming did have legal authority to apply PSD to GHG-emitting
sources. Accordingly, it is clear that the solicitation of comment
was sufficient notice to the public. More detailed information
regarding Wyoming and other states covered in this rulemaking may be
found in the ``Supplemental Information Document for Final Action to
Ensure Authority to Issue Permits under the Prevention of
Significant Deterioration Program to Sources of Greenhouse Gas
Emissions: Finding of Substantial Inadequacy and SIP Call,'' located
in the docket for this rulemaking.
    \13\ Thus, commenters are incorrect in characterizing EPA as
having ``inadvertently omitted [Wyoming] from its notice of proposed
rulemaking.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Timing of GHG PSD FIP

    In the GHG PSD FIP proposal, we stated:

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

75 FR at 53,889/2.

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

    [O]nly after a state has * * * failed to [submit a SIP revision]
after an applicable period as specified in the CAA or EPA
regulations * * * and after EPA has made a determination that the
SIP revision is deficient in one or more respects, may the Agency
step in to propose a FIP rule. And only after taking that step could
EPA then proceed * * * [to take final action on the FIP.]
Notwithstanding EPA's strained and out-of-context emphasis on the
isolated sentence fragment, ``at any time within,'' the very fact
that the CAA affords EPA up to two full years in which to complete
the cooperative task of considering whether a FIP is needed and how
such a plan should be fashioned, and the corollary fact that the Act
does not mandate any federal takeover in less than two years,
militate against EPA's approach here to FIP rulemaking. In
particular, those facts undermine EPA's assumption that it need not
take the time to develop a proposed plan specifically directed at
remedying identified deficiencies in a given state submission, and
to give states and the regulated community a meaningful opportunity
to comment on a proposed FIP that has been specifically developed to
address the individual needs and circumstances of such a state.
(Emphasis in original.)

    EPA disagrees with these comments. As we stated in the proposed
rule, CAA section 110(c)(1)(A) authorizes EPA to promulgate a FIP ``at
any time within 2 years after'' finding a failure to submit a required
SIP revision. We are promulgating the FIP immediately because we wish
to minimize any disruption in permitting for the larger GHG-emitting
sources and we are doing so after consultation with the affected
states. The seven states that are the subject of this rulemaking told
EPA that they would not object to the promulgation of a FIP at the
earliest possible deadline, or December 22, 2010, because that would
ensure a permitting authority would be in place as of January 2, 2011.
Without the FIP, these states would be without an approved program to
issue PSD permits for GHG-emitting sources until the states submit, and
EPA approves, a SIP revision. The FIP provides sources in these states
an immediate mechanism to obtain required permits for construction and
modification until the revised SIPs are approved.
    As for commenters' analysis of CAA section 110(c), that provision,
by its terms, imposes no constraints on when EPA may propose a FIP.
This stands in contrast to other CAA provisions that do impose
requirements for the timing of proposals. See CAA sections
109(a)(1)(A), 111(b)(1)(B). In light of the lack of constraints in CAA
section 110(c), EPA was free to propose the FIP at the same time that
EPA proposed the SIP call. We do not agree that the overall construct
of CAA section 110 imposes the implicit constraints that the commenter
identifies.
    Instead, what is important is that for each of the 13 states for
which EPA specifically proposed the FIP, which were the same as the
ones for which EPA proposed the SIP call, the public had adequate
notice of the circumstances under which EPA proposed that the state
would become subject to the FIP. Those circumstances were that if EPA
finalized the SIP call, as proposed, for the state, and if the state
did not submit a SIP revision applying its PSD program to GHG-emitting
sources by the deadline, EPA would establish a FIP for that state. In
fact, EPA did finalize the SIP call for all but one of those 13 states
and is now finalizing the FIP for six of them. Further, EPA received
comments on the proposed FIP from several states and/or industries
located in states for which EPA proposed the FIP, which indicates that
the FIP proposal provided adequate notice. See, e.g., comments
identified in the rulemaking docket as document numbers 0084.1 (Texas),
0055.1 (Arkansas), 0066.1 (Texas Industry Project), and 0109.1
(National Mining Association).
    Although for Wyoming EPA did not specifically propose the SIP call
or FIP, the public had the same opportunity to

comment on the prospect of a FIP for Wyoming as the public did for the
states for which EPA did specifically propose the FIP. This is because
EPA solicited comment on whether to issue a SIP call for Wyoming (along
with other states with approved PSD programs); made clear that if EPA
received certain information, EPA would finalize the SIP call for
Wyoming; and, further, made clear that if EPA issued a SIP call for
Wyoming and Wyoming did not submit the required SIP by Wyoming's
deadline, then EPA would finalize the FIP. In fact, Wyoming commented
on the FIP. See comment identified in the rulemaking docket as document
number 0079.1.
    Moreover, EPA was clear that for each state subject to the SIP call
that did not submit the required SIP revision by its SIP submittal
deadline, EPA would immediately make a finding of failure to submit and
immediately promulgate a FIP. EPA explained that this approach was
needed to assure the availability of a permitting authority for sources
in the state.
    Finally, each of the states and the public in general had adequate
notice of the terms of the FIP as it would apply in any state.
Specifically, EPA indicated that the FIP would apply PSD to GHG-
emitting sources at the Tailoring Rule thresholds.
    Therefore, the FIP proposal was clear as to the circumstances under
which EPA proposed to promulgate a FIP, the timing for the FIP, and the
terms of the FIP. Moreover, each of those three things applied to each
state that would become subject to the SIP call. Accordingly, the FIP
proposal did, in fact, ``give states and the regulated community a
meaningful opportunity to comment on a proposed FIP that has been
specifically developed to address the individual needs and
circumstances of such a state,'' as the commenter argues the FIP
proposal needed to do.
    Several commenters raised an additional objection, which was that
in their view, EPA failed to comply with the requirements of CAA
section 307(d)(3) that (i) the proposed FIP include a summary of ``the
factual data on which the proposed rule is based'' and ``the major
legal interpretations and policy considerations underlying the proposed
rule''; and (ii) ``[a]ll data, information, and documents * * * on
which the proposed rule relies shall be included in the docket on the
date of publication of the proposed rule.'' (Emphasis added by one of
these commenters.) One of these commenters explained that (a) in the
SIP call proposal, EPA had made a detailed request that states provide
information as to whether their state law authorized the application of
PSD to GHG-emitting sources; (b) this detailed request demonstrated
that the proposal did not establish the legal basis for the SIP call;
and (c) as a result, the FIP proposal did not include ``information
that is essential to determining whether a FIP for a given state is
even appropriate and justified.'' (Emphasis in original.) This
commenter added--

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

    We disagree with this comment. The preamble for the FIP proposal
included the CAA section 307(d)(3)-required ``summary'' of the factual
basis and legal interpretations. To reiterate, EPA identified the
states for which EPA was proposing the FIP, 75 FR at 53886 and table
II-1 and 53889/1, and added that EPA would subject other states to the
FIP if they, too, became subject to the SIP call, id. 53886 and table
II-2 and 53889/2; described the timing for the FIP, id. 53889/2-3;
described the substance of the FIP, id. 53889/3-53890/1; and explained
that CAA section 110(c)(1) provided the legal basis, id. 53889/2. The
purpose of the CAA section 307(d)(3) requirements is to provide the
public with adequate notice, and these statements did so by making
clear the circumstances under which EPA was proposing to promulgate a
FIP and the timing and substance of the proposed FIP.
    It is true that for any state, whether and when EPA would finalize
the FIP for any state depended on other factors, including whether EPA
would finalize the SIP call for that state, what deadline EPA would
establish, and whether the state would submit its required corrective
SIP revision by that deadline. But the FIP proposal put the public on
notice, with sufficient specificity, as to EPA's plan. In any event,
any FIP is necessarily dependent on other factors, including state
actions. That is, under any circumstances, whether EPA finalizes any
proposed FIP depends on whether (i) if the proposed FIP is based on the
failure of a state to make a required submittal, the state makes the
required submittal; or (ii) if the proposed FIP is based on EPA's
disapproval of a SIP revision, whether the state submits a revised SIP
revision that EPA then approves.
    Most broadly, commenters' approach--which is that EPA cannot
propose a FIP in concert with a SIP call, but instead must proceed in
seriatim by completing the SIP call first and then proposing the FIP--
would result in lengthy delays in the establishment of a permitting
authority to process GHG-emitting sources' PSD permit applications. As
a result, commenters' approach could well cause delays in these
sources' ability to undertake construction and modification projects.
    We include related comments and responses in the Response to
Comments document.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The Response to Comments document for the FIP can be found
in the docket for this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Substance of GHG PSD FIP

    In the FIP proposal, we stated:

    The proposed FIP constitutes the EPA regulations found in 40 CFR
52.21, including the PSD applicability provisions, with a limitation
to assure that, strictly for purposes of this rulemaking, the FIP
applies only to GHGs. Under the PSD applicability provisions in 40
CFR 52.21(b)(50), the PSD program applies to sources that emit the
requisite amounts of any ``regulated NSR pollutant[s],'' including
any air pollutant ``subject to regulation.'' However, in states for
which EPA would promulgate a FIP to apply PSD to GHG-emitting
pollutants, the approved SIP already applies PSD to other air
pollutants. To appropriately limit the scope of the FIP, EPA
proposes in this action to amend 40 CFR 52.21(b)(50) to limit the
applicability provision to GHGs.
    We propose this FIP because it would, to the greatest extent
possible, mirror EPA regulations (as well as those of most of the
states). In addition, this FIP would readily incorporate the phase-
in approach for PSD applicability to GHG sources that EPA has
developed in the Tailoring Rule and expects to develop further
through additional rulemaking. As explained in the Tailoring Rule,
incorporating this phase-in approach--including Steps 1 and 2 of the
phase-in as promulgated in the Tailoring Rule--can be most readily
accomplished through interpretation of the terms in the definition
``regulated NSR pollutant,'' including the term ``subject to
regulation.''
    In accordance with the Tailoring Rule, * * * the FIP would apply
in Step 1 of the phase-in approach only to ``anyway sources'' (that
is, sources undertaking construction or modification projects that
are required to apply for PSD permits anyway due to their non-GHG
emissions and that emit GHGs in the amount of at least 75,000 tpy on
a CO2e basis) and would apply in Step 2 of the phase-in
approach to both ``anyway sources'' and sources that meet the
100,000/75,000-tpy threshold (that is, (i) sources that newly

construct and would not be subject to PSD on account of their non-
GHG emissions, but that emit GHGs in the amount of at least 100,000
tpy CO2e, and (ii) existing sources that emit GHGs in the
amount of at least 100,000 tpy CO2e, that undertake
modifications that would not trigger PSD on the basis of their non-
GHG emissions, but that increase GHGs by at least 75,000 tpy
CO2e).
    Under the FIP, with respect to permits for ``anyway sources,''
EPA will be responsible for acting on permit applications for only
the GHG portion of the permit, and the state will retain
responsibility for the rest of the permit. Likewise, with respect to
permits for sources that meet the 100,000/75,000-tpy threshold, our
preferred approach--for reasons of consistency--is that EPA will be
responsible for acting on permit applications for only the GHG
portion of the permit, that the state permitting authorities will be
responsible for the non-GHG portion of the permit, and EPA will
coordinate with the state permitting authority as needed in order to
fully cover any non-GHG emissions that, for example, are subject to
BACT because they exceed the significance levels. We recognize that
questions may arise as to whether the state permitting authorities
have authority to permit non-GHG emissions; as a result, we solicit
comment on whether EPA should also be the permitting authority for
the non-GHG portion of the permit for these latter sources.
    We propose that the FIP consist of the regulatory provisions
included in 40 CFR 52.21, except that the applicability provision
would include a limitation so that it applies for purposes of this
rulemaking only to GHGs.

75 FR 53889/3 to 53,890/1.

    We are finalizing the FIP as we described it in the proposal, for
the same reasons that we indicated in the proposal, all as quoted
earlier in this preamble.
    State, industry, and environmental commenters questioned how having
EPA issue the GHG portions of a permit while allowing states under a
FIP to continue to be responsible for issuing the non-GHG portions of a
PSD permit will work in practice. Commenters raised concerns about the
potential for a source to be ``faced with conflicting requirements and
the need to mediate among permit engineers making BACT decisions.''
    We appreciate the commenters' concern. We well recognize that
dividing permitting responsibilities between two authorities--EPA for
GHGs and the state for all other pollutants--will require close
coordination between the two authorities to avoid duplication,
conflicting determinations, and delays. We note that this situation is
not without precedent. In many instances, EPA has been the PSD
permitting authority but the state has accepted a delegation for parts
of the PSD program, so that a source has had to go to both the state
and EPA for its permit. In addition, all nonattainment areas in the
nation are in attainment or are unclassifiable for at least one
pollutant, so that every nonattainment area is also a PSD area. In some
of these areas, the state is the permitting authority for nonattainment
new source review (NSR) and EPA is the permitting authority for PSD. As
a result, there are instances in which a new or modifying source in
such an area has needed a nonattainment NSR permit from the state and a
PSD permit from EPA.
    EPA is working expeditiously to develop recommended approaches for
EPA regions and affected states to use in addressing the shared
responsibility of issuing PSD permits for GHG-emitting sources. In
addition, as discussed below, we intend for the GHG PSD FIP to remain
in place only as long as necessary for states' SIPs to be approved.
Moreover, in this interim period, we intend to delegate permitting
responsibility to those states that are able to implement it and that
request it. States that request and receive a delegation will be
responsible for issuing both the GHG part and the non-GHG part of the
permit, and that will moot commenters' concerns about split permitting.
EPA's most recent information is that of the seven states for which EPA
is promulgating a FIP, four states have indicated to EPA that they
intend to seek a delegation (Arizona, Idaho, Kansas, and Oregon) and a
fifth has indicated that it is considering seeking a delegation
(Arkansas).\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ McCarthy Declaration, pp. 136-38, Table II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, beginning on July 1, 2011, those states without
authority to regulate GHG may not be able to issue PSD permits for non-
GHG pollutants to sources that are major only because of their GHG
emissions. This is because under the state's approved SIP, these
sources are not major sources. In this circumstance, EPA will also be
the PSD permitting authority for the non-GHG pollutants, but, as
discussed in detail earlier in this preamble, EPA intends to work
closely with each state to develop mutually acceptable approaches--
including delegation of this authority where possible--to maximize the
opportunity for the state to assume as much of the permitting
responsibilities as possible.
    Finally, we are providing regulatory language to address Oregon.
Oregon's EPA-approved PSD SIP differs from the federal program with
respect to which sources are subject to PSD. EPA is promulgating a FIP
for Oregon that is consistent with the intent of the Tailoring Rule and
that accommodates the difference in the Oregon program. That is, as of
January 2, 2011, sources in Oregon that are currently required to get
PSD permits under the approved SIP will be subject to review under the
FIP for greenhouse gases if they exceed the Tailoring Rule thresholds.
As of July 1, 2011, the determination of which sources will be subject
to PSD review for greenhouse gases under the FIP will be consistent
with how applicability is determined under the current Oregon SIP for
other regulated NSR pollutants.

D. Period for GHG PSD FIP To Remain in Place

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

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

75 FR 53889/2-3.

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

E. Primacy of SIP Process

    In the FIP proposal we stated,

    This proposal [to promulgate a FIP] is secondary to our
overarching goal, which is to assure that in every instance, it will
be the state that will be that permitting authority. EPA continues
to recognize that the states are best suited to the task of
permitting because they and their sources have experience working
together in the state PSD program to process permit applications.
EPA seeks to remain solely in its primary role of providing

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

75 FR at 53890/1-2.

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

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866--Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993),
this action is a ``significant regulatory action'' because it raises
novel legal or policy issues. Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under EO 12866 and
any changes made in response to OMB recommendations have been
documented in the docket for this action.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

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

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

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

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

E. Executive Order 13132--Federalism

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

specifically solicited comment on the proposal for this action from
state and local officials.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by
voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.
    This rulemaking does not involve technical standards. Therefore,
EPA did not consider the use of any voluntary consensus standards.

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

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

K. Determination Under Section 307(d)

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

L. Congressional Review Act

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action does not constitute a ``major rule'' as defined
by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Therefore, this action will be effective December
30, 2010.

V. Judicial Review

    Section 307(b)(1) of the CAA specifies which Federal Courts of
Appeal have jurisdiction to hear petitions for review of which final
actions by EPA. This section provides, in part, that petitions for
review must be filed in the Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit: (i) When the agency action consists of ``nationally
applicable regulations promulgated, or final actions taken, by the
Administrator,'' or (ii) when such action is locally or regionally
applicable, if ``such action is based on a determination of nationwide
scope or effect and if in taking such action the Administrator finds
and publishes that such action is based on such a determination.''
    This rule is nationally applicable under CAA section 307(b)(1). The
circumstances that have led to this rulemaking are national in scope
and are substantially the same for each affected state. They include
EPA's promulgation of nationally applicable GHG requirements that, in
conjunction with the operation of the CAA PSD provisions, have resulted
in GHG-emitting sources becoming subject to PSD; as well as EPA's
finding of substantial SIP inadequacy, imposition of a SIP call, and
establishment of a deadline for SIP submittal. Moreover, in this rule,
EPA is applying uniform principles for promulgating the FIP for each of
the affected states, concerning, e.g., timing (that is, that EPA is
promulgating the FIP for each affected state immediately) and scope
(that is, that EPA is applying the FIP for GHG-emitting sources). The
FIP for each affected state has substantially the same, if not
identical, terms. This rulemaking action is supported by a single
administrative record, and does not involve factual questions unique to
the different affected states. In addition, this rule applies to
multiple States across the country, and in several judicial circuits.
    For similar reasons, this rule is based on determinations of
nationwide scope or effect. For each of the seven affected States, EPA
is determining that it is appropriate to promulgate the FIP immediately
and to apply it to GHG-emitting sources, but not other sources. These
determinations are the same for each of the states. The other
provisions of the FIP are substantially the same, if not identical, for
each affected state. Moreover, EPA is making these determinations and
promulgating this action within the context of nationwide rulemakings
and interpretation of the applicable CAA provisions, as noted above.
    Thus, under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, judicial review of this
final action is available by filing of a petition for review in the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by February
28, 2011. Any such judicial

review is limited to only those objections that were raised with
reasonable specificity in timely comments. Under section 307(b)(2) of
the Act, the requirements of this final action may not be challenged
later in civil or criminal proceedings brought by us to enforce these
requirements.

VI. Statutory Authority

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

    Dated: December 23, 2010.
Lisa P. Jackson,
Administrator.

0
For the reasons set out in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

0
2. Section 52.1987 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  52.1987  Significant deterioration of air quality.

* * * * *
    (d) The requirements of sections 160 through 165 of the Clean Air
Act are not met for greenhouse gases since the plan does not include
approvable procedures for permitting major sources of greenhouse gas
emissions. Therefore, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
rules identified in paragraph (a) of this section, and the Lane
Regional Air Pollution Authority rules identified in paragraph (b) of
this section, are hereby incorporated by reference with the following
changes and made part of the applicable plan for the State of Oregon:
    (1) The definition of ``Regulated NSR pollutant'' at Sec.
52.21(b)(50) and the definition of ``Subject to regulation'' at Sec.
52.21(b)(49) are incorporated by reference, replacing the definition of
``Regulated air pollutant'' at OAR<PHONE_NUMBER>(97), for the purpose of
greenhouse gases only;
    (2) The provisions of Sec.  52.21(q) Public participation are
incorporated by reference for the purposes of EPA permits issued
pursuant to this paragraph; and
    (3) All references to ``Director'' in the Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality rules and the Lane Regional Air Pollution
Authority rules incorporated in this paragraph shall mean the EPA
Administrator for the purposes of EPA permits issued pursuant to this
paragraph.

0
3. Section 52.37 is added to read as follows:

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

    (a) The requirements of sections 160 through 165 of the Clean Air
Act are not met to the extent the plan, as approved, of the states
listed in paragraph (b) of this section does not apply with respect to
emissions of the pollutant GHGs from certain stationary sources.
Therefore, the provisions of Sec.  52.21 except paragraph (a)(1) are
hereby made a part of the plan for each state listed in paragraph (b)
of this section for:
    (1) Beginning January 2, 2011, the pollutant GHGs from stationary
sources described in Sec.  52.21(b)(49)(iv), and
    (2) beginning July 1, 2011, in addition to the pollutant GHGs from
sources described under paragraph (a)(1) of this section, stationary
sources described in Sec.  52.21(b)(49)(v).
    (b) Paragraph (a) of this section applies to:
    (1) Arizona, Pinal County; Rest of State (Excludes Maricopa County,
Pima County, and Indian Country);
    (2) Arkansas;
    (3) Florida;
    (4) Idaho;
    (5) Kansas;
    (6) Wyoming.
    (c) For purposes of this section, the ``pollutant GHGs'' refers to
the pollutant GHGs, as described in Sec.  52.21(b)(49)(i).

[FR Doc. 2010-32784 Filed 12-29-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 65 (Tuesday, April 5, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19600-19601]
[FR Doc No: 2016-07810]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OGC-2016-0190; FRL-9944-57-OGC]

Proposed Consent Decree, Clean Air Act Citizen Suit

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of Proposed Consent Decree; Request for Public Comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with section 113(g) of the Clean Air Act, as
amended (``CAA'' or the ``Act''), notice is hereby given of a proposed
consent decree to address a lawsuit filed by Donald van der Vaart, in
his official capacity as Secretary of the North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality, and the North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of North Carolina: Donald van der Vaart, et al. v.
EPA, Civil Action No. 5:15-cv-593-FL (E.D. NC) (filed Nov. 13, 2015).
Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit alleging that Gina McCarthy, in her official
capacity as Administrator of the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (``EPA''), failed to perform a duty mandated by the CAA to take
final action to approve, disapprove, or conditionally approve, in whole
or in part, North Carolina's September 5, 2013 state implementation
plan (``SIP'') revisions addressing the prevention of significant
deterioration (``PSD'') regulations regarding the increments for
particulate matter less than 2.5 micrometers (``PM2.5'') and
implementing regulations. The proposed consent decree would establish a
deadline for EPA to take certain specified actions.

DATES: Written comments on the proposed consent decree must be received
by May 5, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID number EPA-

HQ-OGC-2016-0190, online at www.regulations.gov (EPA's preferred
method); by email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>by mail to EPA Docket Center,
Environmental Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001; or by hand delivery or courier to
EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW.,
Washington, DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday,
excluding legal holidays. Comments on a disk or CD-ROM should be
formatted in Word or ASCII file, avoiding the use of special characters
and any form of encryption, and may be mailed to the mailing address
above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephanie L. Hogan, Air and Radiation
Law Office (2344A), Office of General Counsel, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Additional Information About the Proposed Consent Decree

    The proposed consent decree would resolve a lawsuit filed by Donald
van der Vaart, in his official capacity as Secretary of the North
Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, and the North Carolina
Department of Environmental Quality seeking to compel the Administrator
to take an action under CAA sections 110(k)(2)-(4) to approve,
disapprove, or conditionally approve, in whole or in part, the portion
of North Carolina's September 5, 2013, SIP revision addressing the
PM2.5 PSD increments and implementing regulations. Under the
terms of the proposed consent decree, EPA would take certain specified
action with respect to this claim no later than September 23, 2016. See
the proposed consent decree for specific details.
    For a period of thirty (30) days following the date of publication
of this notice, the Agency will accept written comments relating to the
proposed consent decree from persons who are not named as parties or
intervenors to the litigation in question. EPA or the Department of
Justice may withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed consent decree
if the comments disclose facts or considerations that indicate that
such consent is inappropriate, improper, inadequate, or inconsistent
with the requirements of the Act. Unless EPA or the Department of
Justice determines that consent to this proposed consent decree should
be withdrawn, the terms of the consent decree will be affirmed.

II. Additional Information About Commenting on the Proposed Consent
Decree

A. How can I get a copy of the proposed consent decree?

    The official public docket for this action (identified by EPA-HQ-
OGC-2016-0190) contains a copy of the proposed consent decree. The
official public docket is available for public viewing at the Office of
Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the EPA Docket Center, EPA
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW., Washington, DC. The EPA
Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number
for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER>, and the telephone number
for the OEI Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    An electronic version of the public docket is available through
www.regulations.gov. You may use www.regulations.gov to submit or view
public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the
official public docket, and access those documents in the public docket
that are available electronically. Once in the system, key in the
appropriate docket identification number then select ``search''.
    It is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments,
whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available
for public viewing online at www.regulations.gov without change, unless
the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information claimed as CBI
and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute is not
included in the official public docket or in the electronic public
docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material, including
copyrighted material contained in a public comment, will not be placed
in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in
printed, paper form in the official public docket. Although not all
docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access
any of the publicly available docket materials through the EPA Docket
Center.

B. How and to whom do I submit comments?

    You may submit comments as provided in the ADDRESSES section.
Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified
comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period
will be marked ``late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late
comments.
    If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other
contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD
ROM you submit. This ensures that you can be identified as the
submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further
information on the substance of your comment. Any identifying or
contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included
as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket,
and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot
read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you
for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
    Use of the www.regulations.gov Web site to submit comments to EPA
electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. The
electronic public docket system is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity, email address, or other
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment.
In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's electronic mail
(email) system is not an ``anonymous access'' system. If you send an
email comment directly to the Docket without going through
www.regulations.gov, your email address is automatically captured and
included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public
docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

    Dated: March 29, 2016.
Lorie J. Schmidt,
Associate General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 2016-07810 Filed 4-4-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 102 (Thursday, May 26, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 30746-30748]
[FR Doc No: 2011-13038]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-64530; File No. SR-BX-2011-027]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NASDAQ OMX BX; Notice of Filing
and Immediate Effectiveness of a Proposed Rule Change Extending the
Pilot Period for BOX to Receive Inbound Routes of Orders from NOS

May 20, 2011.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(``Act'') \1\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\2\ notice is hereby given
that, on May 18, 2011, NASDAQ OMX BX (the ``Exchange'') filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission'') the proposed rule
change as described in Items I and II below, which Items have been
prepared by the Exchange. The Exchange has designated the proposed rule
change as constituting a non-controversial rule change under Rule 19b-
4(f)(6) under the Act,\3\ which renders the proposal effective upon
filing with the Commission. The Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
    \2\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4.
    \3\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Terms of Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change

    The Exchange submits this proposed rule change to extend the pilot
period of the Exchange's prior approval for Boston Options Exchange
(``BOX'') to receive inbound routes of certain option orders from
Nasdaq Options Services, LLC (``NOS'') through August 16, 2011.

II. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

    In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements
concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and
discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The
text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in
Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in
Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such
statements.

A. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement of the Purpose of, and
Statutory Basis for, the Proposed Rule Change

1. Purpose
    Currently, NOS is the approved outbound routing facility of the
NASDAQ Exchange for NOM, providing outbound routing from NOM to other
market centers.\4\ The Exchange and the NASDAQ Exchange have previously
adopted rules to permit BOX to receive inbound routes of certain option
orders by NOS in its capacity as an order routing facility of the
NASDAQ Exchange for NOM.\5\ The Exchange specifically has adopted a
rule to prevent potential informational advantages resulting from the
affiliation between BOX and NOS, as related to NOS's authority to route
certain orders from NOM to BOX without checking the NOM book prior to
routing.\6\ NOS's authority to route these orders to BOX is subject to
a pilot period ending May 18, 2011.\7\ The Exchange hereby seeks to
extend the previously approved pilot period (with the attendant
obligations and conditions) for an additional 90 days, through August
16, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ NOM Rule Chapter VI, Section 11(c). Under NOM Rule Chapter
VI, Section 11(c): (1) NOM routes orders in options via NOS, which
serves as the sole ``routing facility'' of NOM; (2) the sole
function of the routing facility is to route orders in options to
away markets pursuant to NOM rules, solely on behalf of NOM; (3) NOS
is a member of an unaffiliated self-regulatory organization, which
is the designated examining authority for the broker-dealer; (4) the
routing facility is subject to regulation as a facility of the
NASDAQ Exchange, including the requirement to file proposed rule
changes under Section 19 of the Act; (5) use of NOS to route order
to other market centers is optional; (6) NOM must establish and
maintain procedures and internal controls reasonably designed to
adequately restrict the flow of confidential and proprietary
information between the NASDAQ Exchange and its facilities
(including the routing facility), and any other entity; and (7) the
books, records, premises, officers, directors, agents, and employees
of the routing facility, as a facility of the NASDAQ Exchange, shall
be subject at all times to inspection and copying by the NASDAQ
Exchange and the Commission.
    \5\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 60349 (July 20,
2009), 74 FR 37071 (July 27, 2009) (SR-BX-2009-035); Securities
Exchange Act Release No. 60354 (July 21, 2009), 74 FR 37074 (July
27, 2009) (SR-NASDAQ-2009-065).
    \6\ See Chapter XXXIX, Section 2(c) of the Grandfathered Rules
of the Exchange.
    \7\ See Securities Exchange Act Release No. 63364 (November 23,
2010), 75 FR 74121 (November 30, 2010) (SR-BX-2010-078).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,\8\ in general, and with
Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\9\ in particular, in that the proposal is
designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices, to
promote just and equitable principles of trade, to foster cooperation
and coordination with persons engaged in regulating, clearing,
settling, processing information with respect to, and facilitating
transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and perfect the
mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and,
in general, to protect investors and the public interest. Specifically,
the proposed rule change will allow BOX to continue receiving inbound
routes of equities orders from NOS, acting in its capacity as a
facility of the NASDAQ Exchange, in a manner consistent with prior
approvals and established protections. The Exchange believes that
extending the previously approved pilot period for sixty days is a
sufficient length to permit both the Exchange and the Commission to
assess the impact of the Exchange's authority to permit BOX to receive
direct inbound routes of certain option orders via NOS (including the
attendant obligations and conditions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ 15 U.S.C. 78f.
    \9\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Burden on Competition

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will
impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in
furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

C. Self-Regulatory Organization's Statement on Comments on the Proposed
Rule Change Received From Members, Participants, or Others

    No written comments were either solicited or received.

III. Date of Effectiveness of the Proposed Rule Change and Timing for
Commission Action

    Because the foregoing proposed rule change: (1) Does not
significantly affect the protection of investors or the public
interest; (2) does not impose any significant burden on competition;
and (3) by its terms does not become operative for 30 days after the
date of this filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may
designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public
interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to
Section 19(b)(3)(A)\10\ of the Act and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A).
    \11\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A proposed rule change filed under 19b-4(f)(6) normally may not
become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing.\12\
However, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii) \13\ permits the Commission to designate
a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest. The Exchange has requested that the
Commission waive the 30-day operative delay. The Exchange notes that
the proposal will allow BOX to continue receiving inbound routes of
equities orders from NOS, in a manner consistent with prior approvals
and established protections, while also permitting the Exchange and the
Commission to assess the impact of the pilot.\14\ The Commission
believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the
protection of investors and the public interest because such waiver
would allow the pilot period to be extended without undue delay through
August 16, 2011. For this reason, the Commission designates the
proposed rule change to be operative upon filing with the
Commission.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). In addition, Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
requires a self-regulatory organization to give the Commission
written notice of its intent to file the proposed rule change at
least five business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed
rule change, or such shorter time as designated by the Commission.
The Exchange has satisfied this five-day pre-filing requirement.
    \13\ Id.
    \14\ See supra Section II.A.2.
    \15\ For the purposes only of waiving the 30-day operative
delay, the Commission has considered the proposed rule's impact on
efficiency, competition, and capital formation. See 15 U.S.C.
78c(f).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule
change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule
change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or
appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or
otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing,

including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an e-mail to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-BX-2011-027 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

     Send paper comments in triplicate to Elizabeth M. Murphy,
Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549-1090.

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2011-027. This file
number should be included on the subject line if e-mail is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street, NE.,
Washington, DC 20549, on official business days between the hours of 10
a.m. and 3 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available for
inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-BX-2011-027 and should be
submitted on or before June 16, 2011.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cathy H. Ahn,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-13038 Filed 5-25-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 221 (Wednesday, November 17, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 70224-70225]
[FR Doc No: 2010-28914]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 12665-003]

New York Tidal Energy Company; Notice Concluding Pre-Filing
Process and Approving Process Plan and Schedule

November 9, 2010.
    a. Type of Filing: Notice of Intent to File Application for License
for a Hydrokinetic Pilot Project.
    b. Project No.: 12665-003.
    c. Dated Filed: June 1, 2009.

    d. Submitted By: New York Tidal Energy Company.
    e. Name of Project: East River Tidal Energy Pilot Project.
    f. Location: In the East River at Hell Gate, in New York City, New
York. The project would not occupy Federal lands.
    g. Filed Pursuant to: 18 CFR 5.3 of the Commission's regulations.
    h. Applicant Contact: Daniel Power, Oceana Energy Company, 1785
Massachusetts Avenue, NW., Suite 100, Washington, DC 20036; phone:
(202) 465-6405.
    i. FERC Contact: Timothy Konnert<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    j. New York Tidal Energy Company (NYTEC) has filed with the
Commission: (1) A notice of intent (NOI) to file an application for a
pilot hydrokinetic hydropower project and a draft license application
with monitoring plans; (2) a request for waivers of certain Integrated
Licensing Process (ILP) regulations necessary for expedited processing
of a license application for a hydrokinetic pilot project; (3) a
proposed process plan and schedule; and (4) a request to be designated
as the non-Federal representative for section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) consultation and for section 106 consultation under
the National Historic Preservation Act.
    k. A notice was issued on June 10, 2009 soliciting comments on the
draft license application from agencies and stakeholders. Comments were
filed by Federal and State agencies, and non-governmental
organizations. No comments were filed opposing the request to waive the
integrated licensing process regulations or the proposed process plan
and schedule.
    l. The June 10, 2009 notice approved NYTEC's request to be
designated as the non-Federal representative for section 7 of the ESA
with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine
Fisheries Service, and its request to initiate consultation under
section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act with the New York
State Historic Preservation Officer.
    m. The proposed East River Tidal Energy Pilot Project would consist
of: (1) A 2-meter-diameter 20-kilowatt (kW) capacity hydrokinetic
device during Phase 1, which would be replaced by a 6-meter-diameter
200-kW device in Phase 2; (2) a 1,300-foot-long transmission cable that
would interconnect with the existing Wards Island Park System; and (3)
appurtenant facilities for operating and maintaining the project. Based
on the proposed 250 hours of testing operation per-year, the project is
estimated to have an annual generation of 5 megawatt-hours per-year,
which would be sold to a local utility.
    n. The pre-filing process has been concluded and the requisite
regulations have been waived such that the process and schedule
indicated below can be implemented.
    o. Post-filing process schedule. The post-filing process will be
conducted pursuant to the following schedule. Revisions to the schedule
may be made as needed.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Milestones                             Dates
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final license application expected...  January 31, 2011.
Issue notice of acceptance and ready   February 15, 2011.
 for environmental analysis and
 request for interventions.
Issue biological assessment..........  February 15, 2011.
Comments and interventions due.......  March 17, 2011.
Issue notice of availability of        May 16, 2011.
 environmental assessment.
Comments due and 10(j) resolution, if  June 15, 2011.
 needed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    p. Register online at http://ferc.gov/esubscribenow.htm to be
notified via e-mail of new filing and issuances related to this or
other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-28914 Filed 11-16-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 50 (Monday, March 16, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 13513]
[FR Doc No: 2015-05958]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 721

[EPA-HQ-OPPT-2013-0225; FRL-9923-81]
RIN 2070-AJ99

Long-Chain Perfluoroalkyl Carboxylate and Perfluoroalkyl
Sulfonate Chemical Substances; Significant New Use Rule; Extension of
Comment Period

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: EPA issued a proposed rule in the Federal Register January 21,
2015, concerning long-chain perfluoroalkyl carboxylate (LCPFAC)
chemical substances and perfluoroalkyl sulfonate (PFAS) chemical
substances. This document extends the comment period for 90 days, from
March 23, 2015, to June 26, 2015. The comment period is being extended
because EPA received several comments asserting that there may be
significant implications for the supply chain and it is critical that
interested stakeholders have sufficient time to respond to the proposed
rulemaking.

DATES: The comment period for the proposed rule published on January
21, 2015 (80 FR 2885) is extended. Comments, identified by docket
identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2013-0225, must be received on
or before June 26, 2015.

ADDRESSES: Follow the detailed instructions provided under ADDRESSES in
the Federal Register document of January 21, 2015 (80 FR 2885) (FRL-
9915-63).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    For technical information contact: Toni Krasnic, Chemical Control
Division, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, DC 20460-
0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email address:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    For general information contact: The TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill,
422 South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 14620; telephone number: (202)
554-1404; email address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This document extends the public comment
period established in the Federal Register proposed rule of January 21,
2015. This proposed rule for LCPFAC chemical substances is proposing to
designate as a significant new use manufacturing (including importing)
or processing of an identified subset of LCPFAC chemical substances for
any use that will not be ongoing after December 31, 2015, and all other
LCPFAC chemicals substances for which there are currently no ongoing
uses. For this SNUR, EPA is also proposing to make inapplicable the
exemption for persons who import LCPFAC chemical substances as part of
articles. In addition, EPA is also proposing to amend a SNUR for PFAS
chemical substances that would make inapplicable the exemption for
persons who import PFAS chemical substances as part of carpets. EPA is
hereby extending the comment period, which was set to end on March 23,
2015, to June 26, 2015.
    To submit comments, or access the docket, please follow the
detailed instructions provided under ADDRESSES in the Federal Register
document of January 21, 2015. If you have questions, consult the
technical person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 721

    Environmental protection, Chemicals, Hazardous substances,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: March 9, 2014.
Wendy C. Hamnett,
Director, Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
[FR Doc. 2015-05958 Filed 3-13-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P