[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 13 (Friday, January 20, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2937-2941]
[FR Doc No: 2012-1116]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2011-0925; FRL- 9619-6]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Pennsylvania; Nonattainment New Source Review Rules

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania on August 9,
2007. This revision pertains to the preconstruction permitting
requirements of Pennsylvania's nonattainment New Source Review (NSR)
program. The revision is intended to update Pennsylvania's
nonattainment NSR regulations to meet EPA's 2002 NSR Reform regulations
(NSR Reform), and to satisfy the requirements related to
antibacksliding. Additionally, the proposed revision makes clarifying
changes to regulations that are not related to NSR Reform. This action
is being taken under the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before February 21,
2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R03-OAR-2011-0925 by one of the following methods
    A. www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    B. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    C. Mail: EPA-R03-OAR-2011-0925, Kathleen Cox, Associate Director,
Office of Permits and Air Toxics], Mailcode 3AP10, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19103.
    D. Hand Delivery: At the previously-listed EPA Region III address.
Such deliveries are only accepted during normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed
information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R03-OAR-
2011-0925. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change, and may be made available online
at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you
include your name and other contact information in the body of your
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. 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. Electronic
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection
Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal
are available at the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection, Bureau of Air Quality Control, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market
Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gerallyn Duke,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. On August 9, 2007, the
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PA DEP) submitted
a proposed SIP revision pertaining to preconstruction permitting
requirements under Pennsylvania's nonattainment NSR program.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Summary of SIP Revision
III. Proposed Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    EPA last took action on the nonattainment NSR provisions of the
Pennsylvania SIP on December 9, 1997. At that time EPA approved a
wholesale revision of Pennsylvania's preconstruction permitting program
for minor and major sources and included new and revised subchapters A,
B, C, and E under 25 Pa. Code Chapter 127. Pennsylvania had adopted the
new rules in response to the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA)
requirement to submit new NSR programs addressing Sec.  182 of the CAA.
The only subchapter that was not revised was subchapter D--the state's
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program. Pennsylvania
adopted an automatic incorporation by reference (IBR) of the federal
PSD regulations of 40 CFR 52.21. This automatic IBR was approved into
Pennsylvania's SIP on June 18, 1983 (49 FR 33127). The currently
proposed revision has no impact on Pennsylvania's PSD program.
    On December 31, 2002 (67 FR 80186), EPA published final rule
changes to 40 CFR parts 51 and 52, regarding the CAA's PSD and
nonattainment NSR programs. On November 7, 2003 (68 FR 63021), EPA
published a notice of final action on the reconsideration of the
December 31, 2002, final rule changes. The December 31, 2002, and the
November 7, 2003, final actions are collectively referred to as ``NSR
Reform.'' The purpose of this SIP revision is to incorporate changes to
Pennsylvania's nonattainment NSR rules made as a result of EPA's 2002
NSR Reform, and to address the antibacksliding provisions of the United
States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia (D.C. Circuit
Court) decision in South Coast Air Quality Management District v. EPA
\1\ (South Coast).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ In 2006, the United States Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit found in et al., 472 F.3d 882 (D.C. Cir 2006)
that NSR is a control measure and to weaken its requirements under
the SIP would constitute impermissible backsliding under the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The 2002 NSR Reform Rules are part of EPA's implementation of parts
C and D of title I of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7470-7515. Part C of title I
of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7470-7492, is the PSD program, which applies in
areas that meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
(``attainment'' areas), as well as in areas for which there is
insufficient information to determine whether the area meets the NAAQS
(``unclassifiable'' areas). Part D of title I of the CAA, 42 U.S.C.
7501-7515, is the nonattainment NSR program, which applies in areas
that are not in attainment of the NAAQS (``nonattainment'' areas).
Collectively, the PSD and nonattainment NSR programs are referred to as
the ``New Source Review'' or NSR programs. EPA regulations implementing
these programs are contained in 40 CFR 51.165, 51.166, 52.21, 52.24,
and part 51, appendix S.

    The CAA's NSR programs are preconstruction review and permitting
programs applicable to new and modified stationary sources of air
pollutants regulated under the CAA. The NSR programs of the CAA include
a combination of air quality planning and air pollution control
technology program requirements. Briefly, section 109 of the CAA, 42
U.S.C. 7409, requires EPA to promulgate primary NAAQS to protect public
health and secondary NAAQS to protect public welfare. Once EPA sets
those standards, states must develop, adopt, and submit to EPA for
approval a SIP that contains emissions limitations and other control
measures to attain and maintain the NAAQS. Each SIP is required to
contain a preconstruction review program for the construction and
modification of any stationary source of air pollution to assure that
the NAAQS are achieved and maintained; to protect areas of clean air;
to protect air quality related values (such as visibility) in national
parks and other areas; to assure that appropriate emissions controls
are applied; to maximize opportunities for economic development
consistent with the preservation of clean air resources; and to ensure
that any decision to increase air pollution is made only after full
public consideration of the consequences of the decision.
    The 2002 NSR Reform Rules made changes to five areas of the NSR
programs. In summary, the 2002 Rules: (1) Provide a new method for
determining baseline actual emissions; (2) adopt an actual-to-projected
actual methodology for determining whether a major modification has
occurred; (3) allow major stationary sources to comply with Plantwide
applicability limits (PALs) to avoid having a significant emissions
increase that triggers the requirements of the major NSR program; (4)
provided a new applicability provision for emissions units that are
designated clean units (Clean Unit test); and (5) excluded pollution
control projects (PCPs) from the definition of ``physical change or
change in the method of operation.'' On November 7, 2003 (68 FR 63021),
EPA published a notice of final action on its reconsideration of the
2002 NSR Reform Rules, which added a definition for ``replacement
unit'' and clarified an issue regarding PALs.
    After the 2002 NSR Reform Rules were finalized and effective (March
3, 2003), industry, state, and environmental petitioners challenged
numerous aspects of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules, along with portions of
EPA's 1980 NSR Rules (45 FR 52676, August 7, 1980). On June 24, 2005,
the D.C. Circuit Court issued a decision on the challenges to the 2002
NSR Reform Rules. New York v. United States, 413 F.3d 3 (D.C. Cir.
2005) (New York I). In summary, the D.C. Circuit Court vacated portions
of the rules pertaining to clean units and PCPs, remanded a portion of
the rules regarding recordkeeping and the term ``reasonable
possibility'' found in 40 CFR 52.21(r)(6) and 40 CFR 51.166(r)(6), and
either upheld or did not comment on the other provisions included as
part of the 2002 NSR reform Rules. On June 13, 2007 (72 FR 32526), EPA
took final action to revise the 2002 NSR Reform Rules to remove from
federal law all provisions pertaining to clean units and the PCP
exemption that were vacated by the D.C. Circuit Court.
    With regard to the remanded portions of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules
related to recordkeeping, on December 21, 2007, EPA took final action
to establish the ``reasonable possibility'' provision which identifies
the circumstances under which a major stationary source undergoing a
modification that does not trigger major NSR must keep records (72 FR
72607). The 2002 NSR Reform Rules require that state agencies adopt and
submit revisions to their SIP permitting programs implementing the
minimum program elements of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules no later than
January 2, 2006. State agencies may meet the requirements of the 2002
NSR Reform Rules with different but equivalent regulations.
    On April 30, 2004 EPA published the Phase 1 Rule to Implement the
Eight-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard, (69 FR 23951)
which, among other things, allowed areas that had a higher
nonattainment classification under the one-hour ozone standard to
impose the NSR requirements of the new, less stringent eight-hour
classification. In Pennsylvania, for instance, the classification for
the Philadelphia ozone nonattainment area changed from serious under
the one-hour standard to moderate under the eight-hour standard. The
Phase I rule was subsequently challenged on a number of points,
including the NSR provisions; the D.C. Circuit Court determined, in
South Coast, that all one-hour ozone NAAQS major NSR requirements must
remain in place.

II. Summary of SIP Revision

    The SIP submittal consists of changes to 25 Pa. Code Chapter 121,
General Provisions, and 25 Pa. Code Chapter 127, Construction,
Modification, Reactivation, and Operation of Sources. This action, when
approved, will update Pennsylvania's nonattainment NSR regulations as
previously approved on December 9, 1997 (62 FR 64722). It will
incorporate for the first time the 2002 ``NSR Reform'' provisions into
Pennsylvania's nonattainment NSR program, and will satisfy the
requirements of the D.C. Circuit Court decision in South Coast
regarding antibacksliding. The proposed regulations were adopted by
Pennsylvania and became effective on May 19, 2007. A detailed analysis
of the regulations as well as EPA's rationale for approving them can be
found in the technical support document (TSD) in the docket for this
proposed action.

A. NSR Reform Elements

    Prior to NSR Reform, emission increases associated with a physical
change or change in the method of operation at an existing major source
were calculated by comparing past actual emissions with the facility's
potential to emit after the change, commonly referred to as the actual-
to-potential test. In general, NSR Reform allows owners and operators
of all major sources to choose between the traditional test and a new
test that would compare past actual emissions to a projection of future
actual emissions, so long as those projections are based on realistic
and reliable information. The latter is commonly referred to as an
actual-to-actual test. In addition, the facility would not be required
to establish the projected emissions as an enforceable emissions limit.
    As noted above, NSR Reform was challenged on all fronts, including
the applicability provisions related to the actual-to-actual test and,
of particular importance to the Pennsylvania SIP, the Clean Unit test.
The Clean Unit test would have allowed facilities that had installed
state of the art pollution controls within the past 10 years to avoid
triggering NSR even when it would be clear that actual emissions would
increase. The D.C. Circuit rejected the Clean Unit test on the grounds
that ``the CAA unambiguously defines `increases' in terms of actual
emissions.'' In its concluding paragraph on the matter, the Court
opined that ``because the plain language of the CAA indicates that
Congress intended to apply NSR to changes that increase actual emission
instead of potential or allowable emissions, we hold that EPA lacks the
authority to promulgate the Clean Unit provision, and we vacate that
portion of the 2002 rule, 67 FR 80279-83 (codified at 40 CFR Sec.
52.21(x)) as contrary to the statute under Chevron Step 1.''
    Pennsylvania's current SIP rules, approved on December 9, 1997,
allow

sources to determine nonattainment NSR applicability based on a
comparison of past ``maximum allowable emissions'' to future ``maximum
allowable emissions,'' i.e., a potential-to-potential test to determine
NSR applicability. By any measure, these rules did not conform to the
pre-Reform actual-to-potential test or to the mandate of the D.C.
Circuit Court in New York I that applicability must be based on
increases in actual emissions. The 1997 SIP could allow facilities to
make substantial increases in actual emissions without undergoing
review and without applying offsets or complying with Lowest Achievable
Emission Rate (LAER) requirements, particularly in nonattainment areas
that already have poor air quality. By incorporating NSR Reform
elements, adoption of the proposed 2007 SIP revision is a significant
strengthening of the SIP and will bring Pennsylvania's program in line
with the requirements of the CAA.
    Pennsylvania has adopted all of the NSR Reform measures with some
modifications: The look-back period for determining baseline actual
emissions (BAE) is five years for all facilities. However, facilities
that are not Electric Generating Units (EGUs) may request up to ten
years upon a demonstration that a different period is more
representative of normal source operation. Also, BAE do not include
emissions associated with malfunctions. Finally, the same 24-month
period is to be used for all pollutants when multiple units are
affected by a project unless a facility can demonstrate that another
24-month period would be more representative. Another difference is
that Pennsylvania rules require projected actual emissions to be
incorporated into the required plan approval as an emissions limit.
Finally, differences in establishing BAE related to the look-back
period and inclusion of emissions from malfunctions, noted above, also
apply to PALs in Pennsylvania.
    It wasn't necessary for Pennsylvania to make any changes related to
the remanded portions of the 2002 NSR Reform Rules related to
clarification of the term ``reasonable possibility'' (72 FR 72607).
This is because Pennsylvania facilities that use projected actual
emissions with the result that major NSR is not triggered must still
obtain a permit. These permits require all facilities to maintain and
report their post-change emissions.

B. Antibacksliding

    On April 30, 2004, EPA designated Bucks, Chester, Delaware,
Montgomery and Philadelphia Counties in Pennsylvania as moderate
nonattainment under the eight-hour ozone NAAQS and revoked the one-hour
ozone NAAQS. Under the one-hour ozone standard, Bucks, Chester,
Delaware, Montgomery and Philadelphia Counties had been designated as
severe nonattainment. As a result of South Coast, all one-hour ozone
NAAQS major NSR requirements in Pennsylvania and in the five-county
Philadelphia area must remain in place. Under this SIP revision,
facilities in these counties which emit or have the potential to emit
at least 25 tons per year (tpy) of NOX or VOCs will be
considered major facilities and be subject to the requirements
applicable to major facilities located in a severe nonattainment area
of ozone.

C. Miscellaneous Changes

    In addition to the changes outlined above, the proposed revisions
include miscellaneous changes that were intended to provide additional
clarity in Pennsylvania's regulations. These changes include the
addition of definitions (unrelated to NSR reform) to conform to the
federal nonattainment regulations in 40 CFR 51.165, clarification of
provisions related to emission reduction credits, the re-codification
of certain sections, and some additional clarifying rule changes. The
TSD contains more detail on all of the proposed changes, and can be
found in the docket for this action.

III. Proposed Action

    EPA's review of this material indicates that the 2007 SIP revision,
amending Pennsylvania's NSR construction, modification, reactivation
and operation permit programs at 25 Pa. Code Section 121.1 and 25 Pa.
Code Chapter 127, significantly strengthens the existing SIP and is
consistent with the federal program requirements for nonattainment NSR
set forth at 40 CFR 51.165. EPA is proposing to approve the August 9,
2007 Pennsylvania SIP revision. EPA is soliciting public comments on
the issues discussed in this document. These comments will be
considered before taking final action.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control,
Carbon monoxide, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide,
Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: January 3, 2012.
W.C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2012-1116 Filed 1-19-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 110 (Tuesday, June 9, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 32464-32465]
[FR Doc No: 2015-13980]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2015-1650; Airspace Docket No. 14-AEA-8]
RIN 2120-AA66

Amendment of VOR Federal Airways; Northeastern United States

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action amends VOR Federal Airways V-31, V-36, V-98, V-164
and V-252 by removing from the route descriptions, those segments that
extend into and/or through Canadian airspace. This action is necessary
to match route changes made by Canada as part of the Windsor-Toronto-
Montreal (W-T-M) project. The route segments in Canada are no longer in
effect; therefore, the United States has issued Notices to Airmen
(NOTAM) identifying the affected segments as ``not authorized'' pending
the deletion of the segments from the route descriptions through this
rulemaking action.

DATES: Effective date: 0901 UTC, August 20, 2015. The Director of the
Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under
1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.9 and
publication of conforming amendments.

ADDRESSES: FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and Reporting
Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. The Order is also available for
inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call
(202) 741-6030, or go to http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federal-regulations/ibr_locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.9, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15. For further
information, you can contact the Airspace Policy and Regulations Group,
Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20591; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Gallant, Airspace Policy and
Regulations Group, Office of Airspace Services, Federal Aviation
Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20591;
telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Authority for This Rulemaking

    The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is
found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106
describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII,
Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's
authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described
in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section,
the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of
the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the
efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that
authority as it is merely an editorial change to the legal descriptions
of V-31, V-36, V-98, V-164 and V-252 to reflect changes in the Canadian
route structure.

Background

    This action amends VOR Federal airways V-31, V-36, V-98, V-164 and
V-252 as a result of the Windsor-Toronto-Montreal (W-T-M) and Northeast
United States Cross-border Airspace Modernization and Redesign
initiative. NavCanada, in an effort to transition to an Area Navigation
(RNAV) route system, removed a number of conventional airways, many of
which crossed the United States/Canadian border. The airways listed
above with the exception of V-98 were part of that initiative that
became effective on November 13, 2014 (79 FR 57758). Canadian segments
of V-98 were subsequently removed by Canada in January 2015.
Coordination for the modification of the Federal airways listed above
was not completed in time for inclusion in the November 13, 2014,
docket action. Currently, the United States has issued regulatory
Notices to Airman (NOTAM) classifying the segments of the above listed
airways lying within Canadian airspace as ``not authorized.''
    This action is required to match the changes in the Canadian route
structure. It will enhance safety within the National Airspace System
and will facilitate a seamless air traffic route system between the two
countries.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document amends FAA Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15,
2014. FAA Order 7400.9Y is publicly available as listed in the
ADDRESSES section of this final rule. FAA Order 7400.9Y lists Class A,
B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Rule

    This action amends Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR)
part 71 by removing those former route segments in Canadian airspace
from the descriptions of VOR Federal airways V-31, V-36, V-98, V-164
and V-252. This action aligns the United States airways with route
changes instituted by Canada as part of NavCanada's W-T-M project.
    The following is a summary of the specific changes by route. Where
new navigation aid radials are designated, both True and Magnetic
degrees are stated. Otherwise, only True degrees are shown.
    V-31 The segment between the intersection of the Rochester 279[deg]
and the Toronto, Canada 150[deg] radials is removed and a new end point
formed by the intersection of the Rochester 279[deg] and the Buffalo,
NY 023[deg](T)/031[deg](M) radials is inserted.
    V-36 The segments between Thunder Bay, ON, Canada and the
intersection of the Toronto and Buffalo radials is removed, The amended
route extends between Buffalo, NY and the intersection of the
LaGuardia, NY 310[deg] and the Stillwater, NJ 043[deg] radials as
currently published.
    V-98 The segments between Windsor, ON, Canada and St. Jean, PQ,
Canada are removed.
    V-164 The segment between Toronto, ON, Canada and Buffalo, NY is
removed. The amended route extends

between Buffalo and East Texas, PA as currently published.
    V-252 The segment between Toronto, ON, Canada and the intersection
of the Toronto 116[deg] and the Geneseo, NY 305[deg] radials is
removed. A new start point formed by the intersection of the Buffalo,
NY 023[deg](T)/031[deg](M) and the Geneseo 305[deg] radials is
inserted. The remainder of the route to Dupont, DE, is unchanged,
    In the regulatory text, below, only True degrees are listed when
defining radials.
    Since this action involves removing from the descriptions of VOR
Federal airways V-31, V-36, V-98, V-164 and V-252, those route segments
in Canada that have previously been cancelled, I find that notice and
public procedures under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this regulation: (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory
action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule''
under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26,
1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation
as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter
that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    Domestic VOR Federal Airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) of
FAA Order 7400.9Y, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15,
2014, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The VOR
Federal Airways listed in this document will be published subsequently
in the Order.

Environmental Review

    The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance
with FAA Order 1050.1E, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,
paragraph 311k. This airspace action consists of editorial changes only
and is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental
impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant
preparation of an environmental assessment.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--DESIGNATION OF CLASS A, B, C, D, AND E AIRSPACE AREAS; AIR
TRAFFIC SERVICE ROUTES; AND REPORTING POINTS

0
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR part 71 continues to read as
follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O.
10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.

Sec.  71.1  [Amended]

0
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of the Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9Y, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 6, 2014, and effective September 15,
2014, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6010(a)--Domestic VOR Federal Airways

* * * * *

V-31 [Amended]

    From Patuxent River, MD; INT Patuxent River 338[deg] and
Nottingham, MD, 128[deg] radials; Nottingham. From Baltimore, MD;
INT Baltimore 004[deg] and Harrisburg, PA, 147[deg] radials;
Harrisburg; Selinsgrove, PA; Williamsport, PA; Elmira, NY; INT
Elmira 002[deg] and Rochester, NY, 120[deg] radials; Rochester; to
INT Rochester 279[deg] and Buffalo, NY 023[deg] radials.

V-36 [Amended]

    From Buffalo, NY; Elmira, NY; INT Elmira 110[deg] and LaGuardia,
NY, 310[deg] radials; to INT LaGuardia 310[deg] and Stillwater, NJ,
043[deg] radials.

V-98 [Amended]

    From Dayton, OH; INT Dayton 358[deg] and Carleton, MI, 243[deg]
radials; to INT Carleton 243[deg] and Waterville, OH, 321[deg]
radials.

V-164 [Amended]

    From Buffalo, NY; Wellsville, NY; Stonyfork, PA; Williamsport,
PA; INT Williamsport 129[deg] and East Texas, PA, 315[deg] radials;
to East Texas.

V-252 [Amended]

    From INT Buffalo, NY 023[deg] and Geneseo, NY, 305[deg] radials;
Geneseo; Binghamton, NY; Huguenot, NY; INT Huguenot 196[deg] and
Robbinsville, NJ, 351[deg] radials; Robbinsville; to Dupont, DE.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 2, 2015.
Gary A. Norek,
Manager, Airspace Policy and Regulations Group.
[FR Doc. 2015-13980 Filed 6-8-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 243 (Thursday, December 18, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75576-75577]
[FR Doc No: 2014-29547]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket No. FEMA-2014-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1343]

Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency; DHS.

ACTION: Notice; correction.

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

SUMMARY: On September 19, 2013, FEMA published in the Federal Register
a proposed flood hazard determination notice at 78 FR 57646 for Harris
County, Texas, and Incorporated Areas. The table published in this
notice provides corrected or updated information regarding the proposed
flood hazard determinations for affected communities in Harris County,
Texas, and Incorporated Areas.

DATES: Comments are to be submitted on or before March 18, 2015.

ADDRESSES: The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report
for each community are available for inspection at both the online
location and the respective Community Map Repository address listed in
the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS
report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map
Service Center at www.msc.fema.gov for comparison.
    You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-1343, to
Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal Insurance
and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC
20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or (email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering
Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration,
FEMA, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER> or (email)
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: FEMA proposes to make flood hazard
determinations for each community listed in the table below, in
accordance with Section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of
1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
    These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the
floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum
that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the
community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent
in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any
time enact stricter requirements of its own, or pursuant to policies
established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood
hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management
requirements of the NFIP and are also used to calculate the appropriate
flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after the FIRM
and FIS report become effective.
    The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are
provided in the table below. Any request for reconsideration of the
revised flood hazard determinations shown on the Preliminary FIRM and
FIS report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR
67.6(b) is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard
determinations will also be considered before the FIRM and FIS report
are made final.
    Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to
communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are
independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other
pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and
technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the
SRP may only be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been
engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days
without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional
information regarding the SRP process can be found online at http://www.floodsrp.org/pdfs/srp_fact_sheet.pdf.

Correction

    In the proposed flood hazard determination notice in the September
19, 2013, issue of the Federal Register beginning at 78 FR 57646, FEMA
published a table titled ``Harris County, Texas, and Incorporated
Areas.'' This table contained a Web page address for online access and
viewing of the proposed flood hazard determination information for the
communities listed in the table. A Revised Preliminary FIRM and/or FIS
report have subsequently been issued for some or all of the communities
listed in the table.
    The information available through the table published below is to
be used in lieu of the information previously available.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 97.022, ``Flood
Insurance.'')

    Dated: November 24, 2014.
Roy E. Wright,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Mitigation, Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Community                 Community Map Repository Address
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Harris County, Texas, and Incorporated Areas
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maps Available for Inspection Online at: http://www.fema.gov/preliminaryfloodhazarddata preliminaryfloodhazarddata
------------------------------------------------------------------------
City of Baytown....................  City Hall, 2401 Market Street,
                                      Baytown, TX 75522.
City of Deer Park..................  City Hall, 710 East San Augustine,
                                      Deer Park, TX 77536.
City of El Lago....................  City Hall, 411 Tallowood Drive, El
                                      Lago, TX 77586.
City of Friendswood................  City Hall, 910 South Friendswood
                                      Drive, Friendswood, TX 77546.
City of Galena Park................  City Hall, 2000 Clinton Drive,
                                      Galena Park, TX 77547.
City of Houston....................  Floodplain Management Office, 1002
                                      Washington Avenue, 3rd Floor,
                                      Houston, TX 77002.
City of Jacinto City...............  Jacinto City City Hall, 1301
                                      Mercury Drive, Houston, TX 77029.
City of La Porte...................  City Hall, 604 West Fairmont
                                      Parkway, La Porte, TX 77571.
City of League City................  Building Department, 600 West
                                      Walker Street, League City, TX
                                      77573.
City of Morgans Point..............  City Hall, 1415 East Main Street,
                                      Morgan's Point, TX 77571.
City of Nassau Bay.................  City Hall, 1800 Space Park Drive,
                                      Suite 200, Nassau Bay, TX 77058.
City of Pasadena...................  Municipal Services Building, 1114
                                      Davis Street, Pasadena, TX 77506.
City of Seabrook...................  City Hall, 1700 First Street,
                                      Seabrook, TX 77586.
City of Shoreacres.................  City Hall, 601 Shoreacres
                                      Boulevard, Shoreacres, TX 77571.
City of South Houston..............  City Hall, 1018 Dallas Street,
                                      South Houston, TX 77587.
City of Taylor Lake Village........  City Hall, 500 Kirby Boulevard,
                                      Taylor Lake Village, TX 77586.
City of Webster....................  City Hall, 101 Pennsylvania Avenue,
                                      Webster, TX 77598.
Unincorporated Areas of Harris       Harris County Permits Office, 10555
 County.                              Northwest Freeway, Suite 120,
                                      Houston, TX 77092.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2014-29547 Filed 12-17-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 98 (Monday, May 21, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 23358-23359]
[FR Doc No: 2018-10714]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 172

[Docket No. FDA-2013-N-1317]

Final Determination Regarding Partially Hydrogenated Oils

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notification; declaratory order; extension of compliance date.

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

SUMMARY: Based on the available scientific evidence and the findings of
expert scientific panels, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we)
made a final determination that there is no longer a consensus among
qualified experts that partially hydrogenated oils (PHOs), which are
the primary dietary source of industrially produced trans fatty acids
(IP-TFA), are generally recognized as safe (GRAS) for any use in human
food. In a declaratory order announcing our final determination, we set
a compliance date of June 18, 2018. We are now extending the compliance
date for certain uses of PHOs.

DATES: Compliance dates: See sections II and III of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ellen Anderson, Center for Food Safety
and Applied Nutrition (HFS-265), Food and Drug Administration, 5001
Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740,<PHONE_NUMBER>, email:
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In the Federal Register of June 17, 2015 (80 FR 34650), we issued a
final determination that there is no longer a consensus among qualified
experts that PHOs are GRAS for any use in human food. Because PHOs are
the primary dietary source of IP-TFA, FDA's evaluation of the GRAS
status of PHOs centered on the trans fatty acid component of these fats
and oils. We based our determination on available scientific evidence
and the findings of expert scientific panels establishing the health
risks associated with the consumption of trans fat. FDA's determination
identified significant human health risks, namely an increased risk of
coronary heart disease, associated with the consumption of trans fat
(78 FR 67169 at 67172; 80 FR 34650 at 34659).
    The order established a 3-year compliance date, to June 18, 2018,
to allow time for food manufacturers using PHOs to identify suitable
replacement ingredients for PHOs and to reformulate and modify labeling
of affected products. The 3-year compliance date was also intended to
allow time for submission and review and, if applicable requirements
were met, approval of food additive petitions for uses of PHOs for
which industry or other interested individuals believe that safe
conditions of use may be prescribed. Finally, this compliance date was
also intended to give manufacturers time to exhaust existing
inventories and give distributors and retailers time to distribute
products with PHOs (80 FR 34650 at 34669). We based the compliance date
on the information available, including comments on the proposed order
(80 FR 34650 at 34668 to 34669).
    In the 2015 final order, we stated that food that is adulterated
may be subject to seizure and distributors, manufacturers, and other
parties responsible for such food may be subject to injunction. We also
reminded distributors and other members of the food industry that they
have an obligation to ensure that the food they manufacture,
distribute, sell, or otherwise market complies with the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (80 FR 34650 at 34655).
    In the Federal Register of October 28, 2015 (80 FR 65978), we
published a document announcing that we had filed a food additive
petition submitted by the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA)
seeking approval for certain uses of PHOs in or on select foods. We
initially filed the food additive petition on October 1, 2015. GMA
subsequently amended their food additive petition, and it was re-filed
on March 7, 2017. The amended food additive petition requested that the
food additive regulations be amended to provide for the safe use of
PHOs in certain food applications. Elsewhere in this issue of the
Federal Register, we have published a document announcing our denial of
this food additive petition.
    For purposes of this document extending the compliance date for
certain uses of PHOs, we refer to the specified uses of PHOs in GMA's
food additive petition as the ``petitioned uses'' and all other uses of
PHOs not authorized by FDA as ``non-petitioned uses.'' We refer to
``manufacturing'' in this document as making food from one or more
ingredients, or synthesizing, preparing, treating, modifying or
manipulating food, including food crops or ingredients. See 21 CFR
1.227.
    On March 23, 2018, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018, (Pub.
L. 115-141) was enacted into law. Section 738 of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2018, provided that no PHOs, as defined in our
declaratory order, shall be deemed unsafe within the meaning of section
409(a) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 348(a)) and no food that is
introduced or delivered for introduction into interstate commerce that
bears or contains a partially hydrogenated oil shall be deemed
adulterated under sections 402(a)(1) or (a)(2)(C)(i) of the FD&C Act
(21 U.S.C. 342(a)(1) or (a)(2)(C)(i)) by virtue of bearing or
containing a partially hydrogenated oil, until June 18, 2018.

II. Extension of the Compliance Date for Certain Uses

    We have been informed by a number of trade associations
representing many segments of the food industry that they have replaced
the PHO uses that are not covered by the food additive petition (the
non-petitioned uses) and thus will be able to stop using PHOs by the
June 18, 2018, compliance date (Ref. 1). However, the trade
associations also

have informed us that, due to shelf lives ranging from 3 to 24 months,
a variety of products containing non-petitioned uses of PHOs will be in
distribution on, and for some time after, the compliance date in the
final order (Ref. 1). In addition, the trade associations have informed
us that, if we deny the food additive petition, they will need
additional time beyond June 18, 2018, to remove and replace the
petitioned uses and deplete the product in distribution (Refs. 1 and
2). FDA has considered these requests as well as the health benefits of
removing the uses of PHOs in food manufacturing and is revising the
compliance date for certain uses.

A. Non-Petitioned Uses

    Foods manufactured after June 18, 2018 with non-petitioned uses of
PHOs may be subject to enforcement action by FDA. Based on the recent
industry information, FDA understands additional time is needed for
products manufactured (domestically and internationally) before June
18, 2018, to work their way through distribution. Therefore, we are
extending the compliance date of food products that were manufactured
before June 18, 2018, with non-petitioned uses of PHO. The new
compliance date for these products is January 1, 2020. After January 1,
2020, such foods may be subject to enforcement action by FDA. FDA
believes an 18-month extension is appropriate given the range of shelf
lives brought to our attention and the 3-year original compliance date.

B. Petitioned Uses

    In light of our denial of GMA's food additive petition, we
acknowledge that the food industry needs additional time to identify
suitable replacement substances for the petitioned uses of PHOs and
that the food industry may not have done so for the petitioned uses
while the petition was under our review. Industry has indicated that 12
months could be a reasonable timeframe for reformulation activities
(Ref 1). Therefore, we are extending the compliance date to June 18,
2019, for the manufacturing of food with the petitioned uses of PHOs.
Food manufactured with the petitioned uses after June 18, 2019, may be
subject to enforcement action by FDA.
    The petitioned uses are as follows:
     PHO, or a blend of PHOs, used as a solvent or carrier, or
a component thereof, for flavoring agents, flavor enhancers, and
coloring agents intended for food use, provided the PHOs in the solvent
or carrier contribute no more than 150 parts per million (ppm) (150
milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg)) IP-TFA to the finished food as
consumed;
     PHO, or a blend of PHOs, used as a processing aid, or a
component thereof, provided the PHOs in the processing aid contribute
no more than 50 ppm (50 mg/kg) IP-TFA to the finished food as consumed;
     PHO, or a blend of PHOs, used as a pan release agent for
baked goods at levels up to 0.2 grams/100 grams (0.2 g/100 g) in pan
release spray oils, provided the PHO contributes no more than 0.14 g
IP-TFA/100 g spray oil.
    The petitioned uses excluded dietary supplements. The physical and
technical effects of the petitioned uses of PHOs were specified as:
Release agents, either alone or in combination with other components
(Sec.  170.3(o)(18) (21 CFR 170.3(o)(18))); processing aids or
components thereof (Sec.  170.3(o)(24)); and as solvents, carriers, and
vehicles for fat soluble coloring agents, flavoring agents, and flavor
enhancers (Sec.  170.3(o)(27)).
    In addition, for food manufactured with the petitioned uses before
June 18, 2019, we are extending the compliance date to January 1, 2021.
This time frame will allow manufacturers, distributors, and retailers
to exhaust product inventory of foods made with the petitioned uses
before the manufacturing compliance date. All foods containing
unauthorized uses of PHOs after January 1, 2021, may be subject to FDA
enforcement action.

III. Compliance Dates

    For convenience, we are summarizing the extended compliance dates
as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Original       Extended  compliance
         Product uses            compliance date            date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Non-Petitioned Uses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturing of food with non- June 18, 2018....  Not Extended.
 petitioned uses of PHOs.
Foods manufactured with non-    June 18, 2018....  January 1, 2020.
 petitioned uses of PHOs
 before June 18, 2018.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Petitioned Uses *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Manufacturing of food with the  June 18, 2018....  June 18, 2019.
 petitioned uses of PHOs.
Foods manufactured with the     June 18, 2018....  January 1, 2021.
 petitioned uses of PHOs
 before June 18, 2019.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Petitioned uses exclude use in dietary supplements and are limited to:
 PHO, or a blend of PHOs, used as a pan release agent for baked
  goods at levels up to 0.2 grams/100 grams (0.2 g/100 g) in pan release
  spray oils, provided the PHO contributes no more than 0.14 g IP-TFA/
  100 g spray oil;
 PHO, or a blend of PHOs, used as a solvent or carrier, or a
  component thereof, as defined in Sec.   170.3(o)(27), for flavoring
  agents, flavor enhancers, and coloring agents intended for food use,
  provided the PHOs in the solvent or carrier contribute no more than
  150 parts per million (ppm) (150 milligrams per kilogram (mg/kg)) IP-
  TFA to the finished food as consumed; and
 PHO, or a blend of PHOs, used as a processing aid, or a
  component thereof, as defined in Sec.   170.3(o)(24) and 21 CFR
  101.100(a)(3)(ii), provided the PHOs in the processing aid contribute
  no more than 50 ppm (50 mg/kg) IP-TFA to the finished food as
  consumed.

IV. References

    The following references are on display in the Dockets Management
Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm.
1061, Rockville, MD 20852, and are available for viewing by interested
persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.

1. Letter from the American Bakers Association, et al., to Dr. Scott
Gottlieb, Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration (April 30,
2018) (sent by electronic mail).
2. Letter from Leon H. Bruner, DVM, Ph.D., Senior Vice President,
Science and Regulatory Affairs and Chief Science Officer, Grocery
Manufacturers Association, to Dr. Scott Gottlieb, Commissioner, Food
and Drug Administration (April 27, 2018).

    Dated: May 15, 2018.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2018-10714 Filed 5-18-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P