[Federal Register: March 6, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 43)]
[Notices]
[Page 9812-9813]
[DOCID:fr06mr09-34]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Combined Notice of Filings 2

February 27, 2009.
    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
rate filings:
    Docket Numbers: ER09-752-000.
    Applicants: Alliant Energy Neenah, LLC.
    Description: Alliant Energy Neenah, LLC submits Notice of
Cancellation of AE-Neenah's Rate Schedule 1, a market-based rate
wholesale power sales tariff on file with the Commission.
    Filed Date: 02/25/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090226-0194.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, March 18, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-753-000.
    Applicants: American Electric Power Service Corporation.
    Description: American Electric Power Service Corporation submits
FERC Electric Tariff, Third Revised Volume No 6.
    Filed Date: 02/25/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090226-0193.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, March 18, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-754-000.
    Applicants: Florida Power Corporation.
    Description: Florida Power Corporation submits requests for a
waiver of the Commission's notice of filing requirement to allow the
amended notice of termination provision to become effective 12/31/08.
    Filed Date: 02/25/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090226-0191.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, March 18, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-755-000.
    Applicants: PJM Interconnection LLC.
    Description: PJM Interconnection LLC submits modifications to its
Open Access Transmission Tariff to comply with the Order Approving
Contested Settlement issued by Commission on 4/10/08.
    Filed Date: 02/25/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090226-0192.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, March 18, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-756-000.
    Applicants: Wisconsin Public Service Corporation.
    Description: Wisconsin Public Service Corporation submits revised
tariff sheet to reflect the actual 2008 value for billing for post-
employment benefits and post-retirement benefits other than pensions.
    Filed Date: 02/25/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090226-0249.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, March 18, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-757-000.
    Applicants: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
    Description: Midwest Independent Transmission System Operator, Inc.
submits proposed revisions to its Open Access Transmission, Energy and
Operating Reserve Markets Tariff, to revise the Section 7 etc.
    Filed Date: 02/25/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090226-0196.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, March 18, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-758-000.
    Applicants: Southwest Power Pool, Inc.
    Description: Southwest Power Pool, Inc submits revision to its
Membership Agreement, Original Volume No 3.
    Filed Date: 02/25/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090226-0195.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, March 18, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-759-000.
    Applicants: E. ON U.S. LLC.
    Description: E. ON U.S. LLC submits an executed network integration
transmission service agreement et al.
    Filed Date: 02/25/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090226-0246.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, March 18, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-760-000.
    Applicants: Red Shield Acquisition, LLC.
    Description: Red Shield Acquisition, LLC submits Amendment 1 to the
Standby Facilities Use Agreement between RSA and PPL EnergyPlus, LLC
and PPL Great Works, LLC.
    Filed Date: 02/25/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090226-0247.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, March 18, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-761-000.
    Applicants: Central Illinois Public Service Company.
    Description: Central Illinois Public Service Company submits
Connection Construction Agreement Original Sheet 1 to FERC Electric
Tariff, Rate Schedule 119 with AmerenCIPS et al.
    Filed Date: 02/25/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090226-0248.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, March 18, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-763-000.
    Applicants: Wisconsin Energy Corporation Operating Companies.
    Description: Wisconsin Energy Corporation Operating Companies
submits proposed Second Revised Sheet 2 et al. to FERC Electric Tariff,
Original Volume 2.
    Filed Date: 02/26/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090227-0196.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, March 19, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-764-000.
    Applicants: Wisconsin Electric Power Company.
    Description: Wisconsin Electric Power Company submits clean and
redlined tariff sheets deleting, amending, and revising certain
schedules, terms and conditions in WEPC's FERC Electric Tariff, Second
Revised Volume No 2.
    Filed Date: 02/26/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090227-0195.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, March 19, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-765-000.
    Applicants: Ameren Services Company.
    Description: Ameren Services Company submits boundary line
agreement by and between Illinois Power Company and Union Electric
Company on file as FERC Rate Schedule No 100.
    Filed Date: 02/26/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090227-0194.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, March 19, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-766-000.
    Applicants: Central Illinois Public Service Company, Illinois Power
Company, Union Electric Company.
    Description: Central Illinois Public Service Company et al. submit
revisions to the AmerenIP-AmerenUE Boundary Line Agreement under Rate
Schedule No 88 and 100.
    Filed Date: 02/26/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090227-0193.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, March 19, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-767-000.
    Applicants: Ameren Services Company.
    Description: Central Illinois Public Service Company submits a
Letter Agreement between Ameren Services and Prairie Power, Inc. as
agent for Eastern Illini Electric Coop, effective 2/27/09.
    Filed Date: 02/26/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090227-0192.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, March 19, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-768-000.
    Applicants: Saranac Power Partners, LP.
    Description: Petition of Saranac Power Partners LP for authority to
sell energy, capacity and ancillary services at market based rates
acceptance of initial rate schedule, waivers, and blanket authority.
    Filed Date: 02/26/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090227-0191.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, March 19, 2009.

    Docket Numbers: ER09-771-000.
    Applicants: Entergy Services, Inc.
    Description: Entergy Operating Companies submits an executed
transmission service agreement with KCP&L Greater Missouri Operations
Co etc.
    Filed Date: 02/26/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090227-0190.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, March 19, 2009.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following electric
securities filings:
    Docket Numbers: ES08-41-001.
    Applicants: El Paso Electric Company.
    Description: Supplement to application of El Paso Electric Company
for authorization under Section 204 for transactions related to
refunding and reissuing pollution control bonds and request for
shortened comment period and expedited consideration.
    Filed Date: 02/25/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090225-5123.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, March 05, 2009.

    Take notice that the Commission received the following open access
transmission tariff filings:
    Docket Numbers: OA08-91-001.
    Applicants: Black Hills Power, Inc.
    Description: Black Hills Power, Inc submits revised pages of the
Joint Open Access Transmission Tariff for the Common Use System, et al.
    Filed Date: 02/20/2009.
    Accession Number: 20090225-0004.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on Friday, March 13, 2009.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest in any of the above
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and
385.214) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment
date. It is not necessary to separately intervene again in a subdocket
related to a compliance filing if you have previously intervened in the
same docket. Protests will be considered by the Commission in
determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to
make protestants parties to the proceeding. Anyone filing a motion to
intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the
Applicant. In reference to filings initiating a new proceeding,
interventions or protests submitted on or before the comment deadline
need not be served on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://
www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with Internet
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above proceedings are accessible in the
Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in the
above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification
when a document is added to a subscribed dockets(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please e-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E9-4748 Filed 3-5-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 194 (Friday, October 5, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50264-50266]
[FR Doc No: 2018-21668]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2016-0373; FRL-9984-96-Region 3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
West Virginia; Interstate Transport Requirements for the 2012 Fine
Particulate Matter Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State
implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of West
Virginia. This revision pertains to the infrastructure requirement for
interstate transport of pollution with respect to the 2012 fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS). EPA is approving this revision in accordance with
the requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: This final rule is effective on November 5, 2018.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2016-0373. All documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business
information (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 through
https://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in
the For Further Information Contact section for additional availability
information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph Schulingkamp,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
or by email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On November 17, 2015, the State of West Virginia, through the West
Virginia Department of Environmental Protection (WVDEP), submitted a
SIP revision addressing all required infrastructure elements under CAA
section 110(a) for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. As stated in the
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on August 3, 2018, EPA
has previously taken action on other portions of the November 17, 2015
submittal addressing requirements in CAA section 110(a)(2) for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS, and EPA is taking rulemaking action herein on
only the portion of the November 12, 2015 submittal addressing
requirements in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) (prongs 1 and 2). See 83
FR 38112. In addition, EPA stated in the NPRM that the Agency had
proposed separate action on the portion of the November 12, 2015
submittal addressing requirements in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II)
(prong 4). See 83 FR 27734 (June 14, 2018) (proposing approval of the
November 12, 2015 submittal for prong 4). EPA is not at this time
taking final action on the 2015 SIP submittal addressing prong 4. For
more information on particulate pollution, EPA's infrastructure
requirements, and interstate transport requirements, see Section I of
the August 3, 2018 NPRM.

II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis

    West Virginia's November 17, 2015 SIP submittal stated that the
current West Virginia SIP contains adequate measures to ensure that the
State will not cause significant contribution to nonattainment in, or
interfere with the maintenance of, any other State with respect to the
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS. West Virginia refers to the measures
detailed in the section pertaining to requirements in CAA section
110(a)(2)(A), which included numerous SIP-approved measures and other
federally enforceable measures, under the CAA, that apply to sources of
PM2.5 and its precursors within West Virginia.
    In evaluating whether the measures identified by West Virginia
addressed CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i), EPA used the information in the
memorandum dated March 17, 2016, entitled, ``Information on the
Interstate Transport ``Good Neighbor'' Provision for the 2012 Fine
Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standards under Clean
Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I),'' Memorandum from Stephen D. Page,
Director, EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-08/documents/good-neighbor-memo_implementation.pdf (the 2016 PM2.5 Memorandum). This
2016 PM2.5 Memorandum is included in the docket for this
rulemaking action. After considering the 2016 PM2.5
Memorandum and additional information, EPA came to the same conclusion
as West Virginia and proposed in the NPRM that West Virginia's
emissions do not significantly contribute to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance in another State with respect to the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS.
    A detailed summary of West Virginia's submittal, EPA's review, and
the rationale for EPA's conclusion approving the November 17, 2015
submittal as addressing requirements of prongs 1 and 2 are explained in
the NPRM and the technical support document (TSD) that accompanied the
NPRM and will not be restated here. The TSD is available online at
www.regulations.gov, Docket number EPA-R03-OAR-2016-0373.

III. Response to Comments

    EPA received a total of three comments on the August 3, 2018 NPRM.
Two comments generally discussed matters irrelevant to this rulemaking.
As these two comments did not concern any of the specific issues raised
in the NPRM or address EPA's rationale for the proposed approval of
West Virginia's submittal, EPA provides no response to these comments.
EPA did receive one relevant comment; that comment, and EPA's response
is discussed in this Section of this rulemaking action.
    Comment: The commenter first stated that EPA did not need to
analyze interstate transport of PM2.5 emissions from West
Virginia to California, Idaho, or Florida, and further questioned the
likelihood of West Virginia's PM2.5 emissions impacting
those three States. The commenter then stated that EPA's time and
limited resources would be better spent on other more meaningful
issues, especially since it took three years to develop the analysis
EPA presented.
    Response: First, with respect to the period of time for EPA's
analysis, CAA section 110(a)(1) requires all States to submit a SIP
addressing the elements of CAA section 110(a)(2), including CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) on interstate transport, within three years of EPA
promulgating a new or revised NAAQS. Further, CAA section 110(k)(2) and
(3) requires EPA action on the SIP submission within twelve months of
EPA finding the SIP submission complete. Therefore, the submission of a
SIP addressing interstate transport requirements for the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS

in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) is required by the CAA as is EPA's
action on such SIP submittal. In addition, the requirement for a new
infrastructure SIP submission provides an opportunity for the air
agency, the public, and EPA to review the basics of the air quality
management program in light of each new or revised NAAQS. In the case
of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), this review is specifically focused
on whether a State's SIP will prevent interference with attainment or
maintenance of the NAAQS in a nearby State, and meets requirements for
prevention of significant deterioration and visibility in another
State, as well as international pollution.
    Second, with regards to EPA's analysis of West Virginia's impact on
California, Idaho, or Florida, EPA disagrees that such an analysis is
not necessary. As discussed in the TSD and in EPA's 2016
PM2.5 Memorandum, most of the potential areas of concern
with nonattainment or maintenance issues for the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS were located in California, Shoshone County, Idaho, and in
Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. In addition, the 2016 PM2.5
Memorandum noted air quality monitoring data quality problems in all or
portions of Florida, Illinois, Idaho (outside of Shoshone County),
Tennessee, and Kentucky. Subsequent to the 2016 PM2.5
Memorandum's release, data quality problems were resolved for Idaho
(outside of Shoshone County), Tennessee, Kentucky, and portions of
Florida. Therefore, the remaining potential receptors of interest
included 17 receptors in California, one receptor in Shoshone County,
Idaho, one receptor in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, four counties in
Florida, and all of Illinois.\1\ Based on this information from the
2016 PM2.5 Memorandum and the resolution of the monitoring
quality issues, EPA narrowed the scope of analysis down to these
remaining potential receptors and did not evaluate the entire
continental United States for potential contribution to downwind
PM2.5 nonattainment and maintenance receptors. While EPA
agrees that the likelihood of West Virginia's sources of
PM2.5 emissions contributing to attainment or maintenance
air quality issues in geographically distant areas in California,
Florida, and Idaho is unlikely, EPA and the State are still obligated
to analyze whether the State's sources will significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere in the maintenance of, the NAAQS at those
receptors and at receptors in other States. In addressing this
obligation, EPA relied upon the information in the TSD and on the 2016
PM2.5 Memorandum to conclude West Virginia's SIP was
adequate to prevent West Virginia sources from significantly
contributing to nonattainment or interfering with maintenance in other
States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ A receptor is a monitor within the photochemical modeling
domain that is modeled as ``receiving'' emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Final Action

    EPA is approving the November 17, 2015 SIP revision as it addresses
the interstate transport requirements for the 2012 PM2.5
NAAQS in CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. General Requirements

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

B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

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

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by December 4, 2018. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action.
    This action, addressing West Virginia's interstate transport
obligations with respect to the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS, may not be
challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See
section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Particulate matter.

    Dated: September 25, 2018.
Cecil Rodrigues,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart XX--West Virginia

0
2. In Sec.  52.2520, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by:
0
a. Revising the entry for ``Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure
Requirements for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS''; and
0
b. Adding a second entry entitled ``Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure
Requirements for the 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS'' at the end of the
table.
    The revision and addition read as follows:

Sec.  52.2520  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         State
 Name of non-regulatory SIP revision    Applicable geographic area  submittal date             EPA approval date               Additional explanation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                      * * * * * * *
Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure       Statewide..................        11/17/15  5/12/17, 82 FR 22078..................  Docket #2016-0373. This
 Requirements for the 2012 PM2.5                                                                                action addresses the
 NAAQS.                                                                                following CAA elements of
                                                                                section 110(a)(2): A, B, C,
                                                                                D(i)(II) (prong 3), D(ii),
                                                                                E, F, G, H, J, K, L, and M,
                                                                                or portions thereof.
Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure       Statewide..................        11/17/15  10/5/18 [Insert Federal Register        Docket #2016-0373. This
 Requirements for the 2012 PM2.5                                                     citation].                              action addresses CAA
 NAAQS.                                                                                section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
                                                                                (prongs 1 and 2).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2018-21668 Filed 10-4-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


Kristin Fitzgerald/DC/USEPA/US

12/20/2006 04:52 PM	To

<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Kent Clawson

	cc

	bcc

	Patricia Mercer/DC/USEPA/US@EPA; Meg McCarthy/DC/USEPA/US@EPA; James

Michael/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

	Subject

	Follow-up Question to Colorado College's Comment

John DeLaHunt, Assistant Director of Facilities Services

Kent Clawson, Hazardous Materials Manager

Colorado College

 Thank you for your comments on EPA’s Proposed Rule: Subpart K—Standards

Applicable to Academic Laboratories (71 Federal Register 29712) on behalf

of Colorado College.

In response to Colorado College’s comments (Docket Number

EPA-HQ-RCRA-2003-0012-0169), EPA has a follow-up question.  In the

preamble to the proposed rule (page 29720), EPA estimated that hazardous

laboratory waste constitutes 9% of the annual hazardous waste generated by

college and university large quantity generators.  EPA based this number

on data submitted to EPA by colleges and universities that are large

quantity generators, as part of the 2001 Biennial Report.

In contrast, on page 1 of Colorado College’s comments to the docket, you

commented that, “We believe that EPA misstates the proportion of hazardous

waste that comes from laboratories in the preamble.  We believe that the

proportion is closer to 90% than 9%; this is certainly the case at

Colorado College.”  EPA is very interested in any data that Colorado

College has and can provide to support this assertion.  This information

would be beneficial to EPA in its development of the final rule, in order

to have a fuller understanding of the laboratory waste generation patterns

at colleges and universities.  Unfortunately, this comment is not useful

to EPA without supporting data that can substantiate or validate Colorado

College’s waste generation.  EPA would find it helpful if you could

provide an explanation of the origins of the data (e.g., what year are the

data from, what is included/excluded in the categories of laboratory waste

and hazardous waste), and how or why the data may differ from the Biennial

Report data we relied on.  In addition, we would appreciate a timely

response to allow us to incorporate any information you may provide into

the decision-making process, as appropriate.   Please provide a response

by the end of January 2007.  If you are unable to provide a response by

then, please contact us to let us know if and when you could provide a

timely response.

Any supporting information you provide to EPA will be made publicly

available in the docket for the rulemaking, unless the information is

claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI). Therefore, if you

submit any information that you claim as CBI, clearly mark all of the

information that you claim to be CBI.  Information so marked will not be

disclosed, except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part

2.  Please do not fax any information claimed as CBI.  For additional

information on how to submit CBI, refer to page 29713, of the May 23,

2006, Federal Register, proposed rule for academic laboratories, or

contact LaShan Haynes, the Office of Solid Waste CBI contact, at (703)

605-0516<EMAIL_ADDRESS> Again, thank you for your comments on the proposed standards for academic

laboratories.  Please direct any questions or response to this letter to

any member of EPA’s labs team:

Patricia Mercer,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS> Meg McCarthy,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS> Kristin Fitzgerald,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS> **************************************************************

Kristin Fitzgerald

US EPA - Office of Solid Waste

mail code:  5304P

phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>

fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>

email<EMAIL_ADDRESS> work schedule:  Tuesday/Thursday


[Federal Register: May 1, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 83)]
[Notices]
[Page 20328]
[DOCID:fr01my09-63]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-1830-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2008-0018]

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

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Minnesota (FEMA-1830-DR), dated April 9, 2009, and
related determinations.

DATES: Effective Date: April 14, 2009.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peggy Miller, Disaster Assistance
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration
for the State of Minnesota is hereby amended to include the following
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by
the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration
of April 9, 2009.

    Grant, Lake, Mahnomen, Otter Tail, Pennington, Red Lake, Roseau,
and Wadena Counties for Public Assistance.

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

Nancy Ward,
Acting Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. E9-10080 Filed 4-30-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 36 (Friday, February 22, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 5622-5624]
[FR Doc No: 2019-03093]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2019-0037; Airspace Docket No. 19-ACE-2]
RIN 2120-AA66

Proposed Amendment of Class E Airspace; Denison, IA

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: This action proposes to amend Class E airspace extending

upward from 700 feet above the surface at Denison Municipal Airport,
Denison, IA. The FAA is proposing this action due to the
decommissioning of the Denison non-directional radio beacon (NDB).
Additionally, the geographic coordinates are being updated to coincide
with the FAA's aeronautical database.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 8, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, telephone
(202) 366-9826, or<PHONE_NUMBER>. You must identify FAA Docket No.
FAA-2019-0037; Airspace Docket No. 19-ACE-2, at the beginning of your
comments. You may also submit and review comments through the internet
at http://www.regulations.gov. You may review the public docket
containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final
disposition in person in the Dockets Office between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00
p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal holidays.
    FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and
subsequent amendments can be viewed online at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/. For further information, you can contact the
Airspace Policy Group, Federal Aviation Administration, 800
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783. The Order is also available for inspection at the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of FAA Order 7400.11C at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go
to https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
    FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is
published yearly and effective on September 15.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Witucki, Federal Aviation
Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; 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
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 would establish Class E airspace at Denison Municipal Airport in
support of standard instrument approach procedures for IFR operations
at the airport.

Comments Invited

    Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as
they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Docket No. FAA-2019-0037;
Airspace Docket No. 19-ACE-2.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped
and returned to the commenter.
    All communications received before the specified closing date for
comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule.
The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the
comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact
with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the
docket.

Availability of NPRMs

    An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the
internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking
documents can also be accessed through the FAA's web page at http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace-amendments/">http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/airspace-amendments/.
    You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any
comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets
Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number)
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except federal
holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal
business hours at the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic
Organization, Central Service Center, Operations Support Group, 10101
Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177.

Availability and Summary of Documents for Incorporation by Reference

    This document proposes to amend FAA Order 7400.11C, Airspace
Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 13, 2018, and effective
September 15, 2018. FAA Order 7400.11C is publicly available as listed
in the ADDRESSES section of this document. FAA Order 7400.11C lists
Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and
reporting points.

The Proposal

    The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal
Regulations (14 CFR) part 71 by amending Class E airspace extending
upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of
Denison Municipal Airport, Denison, IA and within 2.0 miles each side
of the 124[deg] bearing from the Denison Municipal Airport extending
from the 6.5-mile radius to 10.9 miles southeast of the airport. This
action is necessary due to the decommissioning of the Denison NDB and
for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR)
operations at the airport. Additionally, the geographic coordinates are
being updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
    Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of
FAA Order 7400.11C, dated August 13, 2018, and effective September 15,
2018, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E
airspace designation listed in this document will be published
subsequently in the Order.

Regulatory Notices and Analyses

    The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is
non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative
comments. It, therefore: (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 will only affect air
traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this
proposed rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

Environmental Review

    This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in
accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, ``Environmental Impacts: Policies
and Procedures'' prior to any FAA final regulatory action.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal
Aviation Administration proposes to amend 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 FAA Order
7400.11C, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 13,
2018, and effective September 15, 2018, is amended as follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E Airspace Areas Extending Upward From 700
Feet or More Above the Surface of the Earth.

* * * * *

ACE IA E5 Denison, IA [Amended]

Denison Municipal Airport, IA
    (Lat. 41[deg]59'12'' N, long. 95[deg]22'50'' W)

    That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.5-mile radius of Denison Municipal Airport and within 2.0
miles, each side of the 124[deg] bearing from the Denison Municipal
Airport extending from the 6.5-mile radius to 10.9 miles southeast
of the airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas, on February 15, 2019.
Wayne Eckenrode,
Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, ATO Central Service Center.
[FR Doc. 2019-03093 Filed 2-21-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register: September 15, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 177)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 47154-47159]
[DOCID:fr15se09-27]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R10-OAR-2008-0690; FRL-8956-7]

Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans: Alaska

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to approve numerous revisions to Alaska's
State Implementation Plan (SIP) relating to the motor vehicle
inspection and maintenance program for control of carbon monoxide (CO)
in Anchorage and Fairbanks. The State of Alaska submitted three
revisions to the Alaska SIP: a March 29, 2002 submittal containing
minor revisions to the Statewide Inspection and Maintenance Program, a
December 11, 2006 submittal containing more substantial revisions to
the Statewide Inspection and Maintenance Program, and a June 5, 2008
submittal containing major revisions to the Statewide Inspection and
Maintenance Program discontinuing the Inspection and Maintenance
Program in Fairbanks as an active control measure in the SIP and
shifting it to contingency measures. EPA is proposing to approve these
submittals because they satisfy the requirements of the Clean Air Act
(hereinafter the Act or CAA).
    Also in this action, EPA is proposing a technical correction to the
boundary description for the Fairbanks CO maintenance area, to correct
a transcription error in the boundary description.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before October 15, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R10-
OAR-2008-0690, by one of the following methods:
    A. http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    B. Mail: Gina Bonifacino, EPA, Office of Air, Waste, and Toxics
(AWT-107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, Washington 98101.
    C. Hand Delivery: EPA, Region 10 Mailroom, 9th Floor, 1200 Sixth
Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101. Attention: Gina Bonifacino, Office
of Air Waste, and Toxics (AWT-107). 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-R10-OAR-
2008-0690. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at http://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 http://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site
is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means the EPA will not know
your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body
of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to the EPA
without going through http://www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 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, the 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 the EPA cannot read your comment
due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification,
the 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
http://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 http://
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the
Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue,
Seattle, Washington 98101.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gina Bonifacino,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or by
e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA. Information is organized
as follows:

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Proposed Actions
    A. 2008 Submittal
    B. 2006 Submittal
    C. 2002 Submittal
    D. 110(k)(6) Correction
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

Fairbanks North Star Borough Maintenance Area Planning History

    The urban portion of the Fairbanks North Star Borough (FNSB or
Fairbanks) was designated in 1990 as a nonattainment area for CO and
classified as moderate. On March 30, 1998, Fairbanks was reclassified
as a serious nonattainment area for failing to attain the ambient
eight-hour CO

standard by the December 31, 1995 deadline. A new plan was required by
October 1, 1999; however, an attainment plan was not submitted to EPA
by the deadline. On April 3, 2000, EPA published a Federal Register
Notice (65 FR 17444) stating that initial, mandatory sanctions would be
triggered if a new plan was not submitted by October 2, 2001. On March,
2001, Fairbanks and the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation
(ADEC or the State) submitted a request to EPA for an extension of the
attainment date from December 31, 2000 to December 31, 2001. On May 25,
2001, EPA granted approval. See 66 FR 28836. Alaska submitted a new
plan on August 30, 2001, and EPA approved the plan on February 4, 2002
(67 FR 5064). ADEC submitted a maintenance plan and redesignation
request to EPA on June 21, 2004. EPA proposed (69 FR 44632) and
approved (69 FR 44601) the plan and redesignated the Fairbanks CO area
to attainment on July 27, 2004. The maintenance plan relies on control
strategies needed to assure maintenance of the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) for carbon monoxide: The Federal Motor
Vehicle Emission Control Program, a basic inspection and maintenance
(I/M) program, a plug-in ordinance, and a woodstove curtailment
program.

Anchorage Maintenance Area Planning History

    Anchorage, Alaska, was first declared a nonattainment area for CO
and classified as moderate on January 27, 1978. The Municipality of
Anchorage (MOA) prepared a plan to attain the NAAQS by December 31,
1987; however, Anchorage failed to achieve attainment by December 31,
1987. The Clean Air Act was amended in November 1990, and EPA
designated Anchorage as a moderate nonattainment area for CO and
required submission of a revised air quality plan to bring Anchorage
into attainment by December 31, 1995. EPA approved the plan in 1995.
However, two violations of the NAAQS in 1996 resulted in EPA
reclassifying Anchorage to serious nonattainment on July 13, 1998 with
an attainment date of December 31, 2000. The MOA submitted a new plan
on January 4, 2002 and EPA proposed approval of the plan (67 FR 38218)
on June 3, 2002. On September 18, 2002, EPA approved the Anchorage CO
attainment plan (67 FR 58711). The MOA submitted a maintenance plan and
a redesignation request for the Anchorage CO nonattainment area on
February 18, 2004. EPA proposed approval of the Anchorage CO
maintenance plan (69 FR 25869) on May 10, 2004 and approved the plan on
June 23, 2004 (69 FR 34935). The maintenance plan relies on control
strategies needed to assure maintenance of the NAAQS for CO. The
strategy focuses on the Federal Motor Vehicle Emission Control Program,
an I/M program, expanded wintertime transit service and promotion of
engine preheaters.

II. Proposed Actions

    As stated above, the EPA is proposing to approve numerous revisions
to the Alaska I/M program contained in three SIP submittals. The March
29, 2002 submittal (the 2002 submittal) includes minor revisions to the
statewide I/M program contained in 18 Alaska Administrative Code (AAC)
50 and 52, the December 11, 2006 (the 2006 submittal) contains
revisions to the statewide I/M program contained in 18 AAC 50 and 52
and the June 5, 2008 (the 2008 submittal) contains substantial
revisions to 18 AAC 52 removing the I/M program in Fairbanks from the
active part of the SIP and moving it to the contingency measures
portion of the SIP. Upon EPA approval of the revised maintenance plan,
the I/M program in Fairbanks will no longer be an active control
measure in the SIP but will be a contingency measure that may be
implemented in the future if the need arises.
    Alaska's SIP amendment submittals are reviewed below in reverse
chronological order. Following the EPA's review of each of the
submittals, we establish the basis for a technical correction to the
Fairbanks CO area boundary under section 110(k)(6) of the Act. The EPA
has also prepared a Technical Support Document (TSD) with more detailed
analysis of the SIP revisions the State of Alaska has submitted for
approval. The TSD is available for public review as part of the docket
for this action.

A. 2008 Submittal

Clean Air Act Basis for Review
    Section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act states:

    Each revision to an implementation plan submitted by a State
under this Act shall be adopted by such State after reasonable
notice and public hearing. The Administrator shall not approve a
revision to a plan if the revision would interfere with any
applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further
progress (as defined in section 171), or any other applicable
requirement of this Act.
EPA's Evaluation of the State's CAA Section 110(l) Demonstration in the
2008 Submittal
    The I/M program is a primary control measure in the current
Federally approved CO maintenance plan for the Fairbanks area. The
State's 2008 submittal revises the maintenance plan for the Fairbanks
area to discontinue the I/M program beginning in calendar year 2010 and
to shift it to the contingency measures section of the SIP. To satisfy
section 110(l) of the Act, the State submitted a technical analysis
using probabilistic rollback modeling that demonstrates that the State
will continue to maintain the CO standard in Fairbanks without the I/M
program in place. In addition, since based on 2006-2008 air quality
monitoring data, the State is violating the 2006 24-hour
PM2.5 standard, the State submitted a technical analysis
demonstrating that removal of the I/M program in Fairbanks will not
result in an increase in PM2.5 direct or precursor
emissions.\1\ The State is well within the compliance levels for the
remaining NAAQS.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See EPA Air Quality Monitoring data http://epa.gov/air/data/
monvals.html?st~K~Alaska.
    \2\ See EPA's Green Book http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/
index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on our review of the State's analyses for CO and
PM2.5, we have concluded that the 2008 SIP revision
discontinuing the I/M program in Fairbanks as a control measure in the
Fairbanks maintenance plan will not interfere with attainment or
maintenance of the NAAQS, including CO, PM2.5, or any other
requirement of the Act. Accordingly, we are proposing to approve the
removal of the I/M program in Fairbanks from the active control
measures portion of the maintenance plan. Based on section 175(A)(d) of
the Act, any measure that is removed from the active portion of a
maintenance plan must be retained as a contingency measure, therefore,
EPA is proposing to retain the I/M program in the Fairbanks CO
maintenance plan as a contingency measure. See September 4, 1992
memorandum from John Calcagni to the EPA Air Division Directors
(``Procedures for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to
Attainment,'' Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality
Management Division), which is included in the docket for this action.
    The following is EPA's evaluation of the State's 2008 SIP revision
that demonstrates that removing the I/M program in Fairbanks will not
impact attainment or maintenance of the CO standard in Fairbanks
followed by our evaluation of the State's analysis

demonstrating that removal of the I/M program in Fairbanks will not
impact attainment or maintenance of the 24-hour PM2.5
standard in Fairbanks.
EPA's Evaluation of the Updated Components of the Federally Approved CO
Maintenance Plan for Fairbanks and our Evaluation of the State's
Analysis of Impacts of Removing the I/M Program in Fairbanks on the CO
Standard
    In the 2008 submittal, the State provided updates to components of
the Fairbanks CO maintenance plan reflecting removal of the I/M program
in Fairbanks and demonstrating continued maintenance of the CO standard
in Fairbanks. These components include an updated emissions inventory
for the period 2006-2015 reflecting the removal of the I/M program
beginning in calendar year 2010, a demonstration of maintenance of the
CO standard in Fairbanks without the I/M program in place, updated
contingency measures that incorporate the I/M program as a contingency
measure, and an updated motor vehicle emissions budget for the CO SIP
that reflects the removal of the I/M program in Fairbanks.
    The following is EPA's evaluation of these updated components. All
of the technical work contained in the State's 2008 submittal was
performed using the same methodology that was used to demonstrate
maintenance in the Fairbanks CO maintenance plan that EPA approved in
2004. See 69 FR 44601. Where data was available, emissions inventory
and modeling inputs were updated with more recent information. This is
explained further in our evaluation below and in the TSD for this
proposed action.
Emissions Inventory
    The State submitted an updated emissions inventory for the period
2006-2015 reflecting the discontinuation of the I/M program in
Fairbanks in 2010. The inventory was prepared in accordance with EPA's
CO emissions inventory guidance.\3\ The inventory includes emissions
for stationary sources, area sources, non-road mobile sources and on-
road mobile sources on a worst case or ``design day.'' \4\ The complete
inventory is included in the Appendix to Volume II Section III.C. of
the State's submittal. The base year for the inventory is 2005 which
corresponds to a year when the area was in attainment with the
standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Emissions Inventory Requirements for Carbon Monoxide State
Implementation Plans EPA-450/4-91-011.
    \4\ A worst case design day for Fairbanks is during the
wintertime when meteorological conditions such as inversions are
present that are most likely to cause exceedances and emissions are
highest.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The State projected the 2005 base year inventory to the years 2006-
2015 to serve as the modeling inventory. This modeling inventory
accounts for the elimination of the I/M program after 2009. EPA's
review of the modeling inventory indicates that there is an overall
decline in base emissions by 4.84 tons per day (tpd) (14%) between the
2005 base year and the 2015 horizon planning year. This is caused by a
24% reduction in on-road emissions (from 25.29 tpd to 19.18 tpd) during
this timeframe. The primary driver in lower on-road emissions is a
sustained reduction in average in-use emission rates as newer, cleaner
vehicles continue to replace older, higher emitting vehicles. The TSD
for this proposed action contains a detailed discussion and table of
emissions from the 2006-2015 inventory.
Maintenance Demonstration
    The State used a probabilistic rollback approach for the
maintenance demonstration in the 2008 SIP submittal. This is the same
methodology that the State used and EPA approved in previous submittals
to model attainment/maintenance with the CO standard in Fairbanks. See
69 FR 44601 and the Technical Support Document for 69 FR 44601. A
detailed discussion of the methodology and results can be found in the
Appendix to Volume II Section III.C of the State's submittal and in
EPA's TSD for this proposed action.
    The State's 2008 submittal contains a summary of the probability of
attainment through 2015 without the I/M program in place from the
probabilistic rollback analysis. Consistent with methods used in
previous plans submitted by the State and approved by EPA, at least a
90% confidence interval is desirable for a long-term demonstration of
attainment for a maintenance plan. Based on the modeling results
contained in the State's submittal, the probability of attainment is
93% or above for all years in the State's maintenance demonstration
(2006-2015). EPA's evaluation of the probabilistic rollback modeling in
the State's 2008 submittal concludes that the Fairbanks area will
continue to attain and maintain the CO standard through the year 2015
without the I/M program in place.
Contingency Measures
    As a primary control strategy in the Alaska SIP, the I/M program
for Fairbanks must be retained as a contingency measure. In addition to
this contingency measure, the previously approved contingency measures
in the SIP continue to apply. See 69 FR 44604. As stated above, Section
175A(d) of the Clean Air Act requires that maintenance plans include as
contingency measures all control measures which were contained in the
State implementation plan before redesignation to attainment. To
satisfy this requirement, EPA will be removing the Fairbanks I/M
Program as a control measure in the SIP and shifting it to a
contingency measure that will be available for implementation if needed
to ensure continued maintenance of the ambient CO standard. As
documented in the State's submittal in Section III.C.9, Fairbanks will
retain the local legal authority necessary to implement the I/M Program
as a contingency measure. Similarly, the State will retain its
authority to implement the I/M Program under State regulation, 18 AAC
52 (included in the State's submittal in the Appendix to Section
III.A.2), as specified in Alaska Statutes 46.14.400 (included in the
State' submittal in the Appendix to Volume II. of this plan).
Conformity Budget
    Under section 176 of the Act, transportation plans, programs, and
projects in nonattainment or maintenance areas that are founded or
approved under 23 U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Act must conform to an
approved SIP. In short, a transportation plan is deemed to conform to
the applicable SIP if the emissions resulting from implementation of
that transportation plan are less than or equal to the motor vehicle
emission level established in the SIP for the maintenance year and
other analysis years. A motor vehicle emissions budget applies as a
ceiling on emissions in the year for which it is defined, and for all
subsequent years until another year for which a budget is defined or
until a SIP revision modifies the budget. Section III.C.10 of the
State's submittal discusses the motor vehicle emissions budgets for the
Fairbanks, Alaska area. For transportation conformity and regional
conformity analysis purposes, motor vehicle emissions budgets for CO
have been established for on-road motor vehicle emissions.
    The budget is based on the emission inventories and attainment
projections found in the State's submittal in Volume III Appendix to
Section III.C.3. This motor vehicle emissions budget applies for each
of the years listed in Table 1. The values presented for 2006, 2010 and
2015 are based upon the 90% confidence level target for maintenance
plans that EPA has used in past approvals of the Fairbanks CO SIP.

              Table 1--FNSB Motor Vehicle Emissions Budget
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           CO emissions
                      Calendar year                         (tons/day)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2006....................................................           24.62
2010....................................................           24.01
2015....................................................           23.61
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The motor vehicle emissions budget in the submitted SIP meets the
following criteria contained in the conformity rule (40 CFR
93.118(3)(4)) and summarized here. The budget must: be endorsed by the
Governor (or a designee); be subject to a public hearing; be developed
through consultation among Federal, State and local agencies; be
supported by documentation that has been provided to EPA; address any
EPA concerns received during the comment period; clearly identify and
precisely quantify the revised budget; show that the motor vehicle
emissions budget, when considered together with all other emissions
sources, is consistent with the requirements for continued maintenance
of the ambient CO standard; demonstrate that the budget is consistent
with and clearly related to the emissions inventory and the control
measures in the plan revision; explain and document revisions to the
previous budget and control measures, and include any impacts on point
or area sources; and address all public comment on the plan's revisions
and include a compilation of these comments. EPA's TSD for this
proposed action contains a detailed review of the Agency's
determination that these criteria have been satisfied.
    Once a motor vehicle emissions budget is approved by EPA, the
Fairbanks Transportation Plan and Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP) must be less than or equal to the motor vehicle emissions budget.
For projects not from a conforming TIP, the additional emissions from
the project together with the TIP emission must be less than or equal
to the budget.
    Consistent with the previously approved maintenance plan, the on-
road source budget is based on emissions inventories and attainment
thresholds calculated using a AKMOBILE6, a hybrid method that
specialized combined measured idle test data with MOBILE6.2. See 67 FR
5067 (February 4, 2002). As a result of the hybrid method used for
calculation of Fairbanks mobile source emissions, it is necessary to
clearly set out a means for agencies to compute emissions for use in
TIP and project conformity determinations. Volume III. Section III.C.10
of the State's submittal contains an explanation on this.
    EPA has found that the conformity budget in the 2008 submittal
meets the purpose of section 176(c)(2)(A) and meets the criteria
contained in the conformity rule 40 CFR 93.118(3)(4). Accordingly, EPA
is proposing to approve the conformity budget contained in the State's
2008 submittal.
EPA's Evaluation of the State's Analysis of the Impact of Removing I/M
Program on PM2.5 in Fairbanks
    Based on a review of the most recent three years of data in EPA's
Air Quality System database for, Alaska is within the attainment limits
for all of the criteria pollutant standards except the 24-hour
PM2.5 standard.5, 6
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ http://epa.gov/air/data/monvals.html?st~AK~Alaska.
    \6\ Based on the most recent three years of data (2006-2008) the
Fairbanks area is in violation of the 24-hour PM2.5
standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As stated above, section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act states:

    Each revision to an implementation plan submitted by a State
under this Act shall be adopted by such State after reasonable
notice and public hearing. The Administrator shall not approve a
revision to a plan if the revision would interfere with any
applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further
progress (as defined in section 171), or any other applicable
requirement of this Act.

    The State acknowledged in its submittal that recent air quality
monitoring data shows exceedances of the 24-hour PM2.5
standard in Fairbanks and in light of this submitted a technical
analysis that demonstrates that PM2.5 direct and precursor
emissions will decline through 2015 in Fairbanks without the I/M
program in place.
EPA's Review of the State's 110(l) Analysis for PM2.5
    To assess the impact of discontinuing the I/M program on
PM2.5 and precursor emissions, the State provided estimates
of motor vehicle emissions within the CO maintenance area with and
without the I/M program using EPA's approved regulatory model for
calculating emissions from motor vehicles, MOBILE6.2. See 69 FR 28830
(May 19, 2004). These estimates were computed using the MOBILE6.2
settings and activity data used to prepare the maintenance
demonstration discussed above in this proposed action. A review of
monitoring data collected in Fairbanks in recent years shows that the
exceedances of the PM2.5 standard in Fairbanks are seasonal,
episodic and occur in winter.\7\ Because the exceedances of the
PM2.5 standard have occurred in the winter in Fairbanks, the
State's analysis examined the impact of removing the I/M program in
Fairbanks on direct PM2.5 and precursor emissions during the
winter season. Estimates were prepared for directly emitted
PM2.5, VOCs or hydrocarbon (HC), NOX,
SOX, and NH3 emissions. With the exception of
ammonia, the State's analysis shows that emissions of all pollutants
are projected to decline substantially between 2005 and 2015. The
increase in ammonia is slight (by .01 tons per day), and EPA does not
believe this increase in ammonia will interfere with attainment the 24-
hour PM2.5 standard. As with the CO projections described
above, the primary driver for lower on-road emissions is a sustained
reduction of average in-use emission rates, as newer, cleaner vehicles
continue to replace older, higher emitting vehicles. EPA's TSD for this
proposed action contains EPA's detailed review of the State's
PM2.5 analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ http://epa.gov/air/data/monvals.html?st~AK~Alaska.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conclusion
    The State's forecast of motor vehicle pollutant emissions shows
that with the exception of ammonia, PM2.5 and its precursors
will decline substantially in Fairbanks between 2005 and 2015 without
the I/M program in place. Because the increase in ammonia is slight (by
.01 ton/day) we do not believe this increase in ammonia will not
interfere with attainment the 24-hour PM2.5 standard in
Fairbanks. Based on this, EPA finds that the discontinuation of the I/M
program will not interfere with attainment of the ambient
PM2.5 standard in Fairbanks. As stated above, the State's
submittal demonstrates that removal of the I/M program for control of
CO in Fairbanks will not interfere with attainment and maintainence of
the CO standard in Fairbanks. The 2008 submittal meets the requirements
of section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act.

B. 2006 Submittal

    The 2006 submittal contains minor revisions to the Statewide
Emissions and Inspection and Maintenance Requirements for Motor
Vehicles and the State Air Quality Control Plan that: remove outdated
language and requirements from the SIP documents that are obsolete with
previous EPA approved revisions to the SIP or with outdated timeframes;
clarify wording and add flexibility to enforce the I/M programs by
allowing the implementing

agency to bring a civil action for pollution under AS 46.03.760(e); and
update the Alaska I/M program manual to include the latest technologies
and the list of aftermarket parts that could be used in the repair of a
vehicle which fails the test. The 2006 revisions also contain a more
substantive revision that lengthens the grace period for new vehicles
to obtain the first certificate of inspection from two years to four
years. The Statewide Inspection and Maintenance Requirements are
approved measures in the maintenance plans for the Fairbanks
maintenance area and for the Anchorage maintenance area; therefore, any
revisions to them are subject to section 110(l) of the Act.
EPA's Review of the 2006 Submittal
    To address the requirements of Section 110(l) of the Act, the State
submitted a technical analysis that shows that the 2006 revision to the
statewide I/M program that lengthens the time period before new
vehicles are required to obtain their first certificate of inspection
from two years to four years will not result in any substantial
increase in CO emissions and therefore will not impact attainment or
maintenance of the CO standard in Anchorage and Fairbanks.
    EPA's review of the State's submittal confirms that the 2006
revisions are minor revisions that are administrative in nature, with
the exception of the lengthening of the time period before new vehicles
are required to obtain the first certificate of inspection from two
years to four years.
    As stated above, the State's analysis focuses on demonstrating
continued maintenance of the CO standard by showing that CO emissions
will not increase substantially as a result of lengthening the time
period before new vehicles are required to obtain the first certificate
of inspection from two to four years. See Appendix to Vol. II Section
III.B and III.C of the State's submittal for the analysis. For the
analysis, the State prepared a revised emissions inventory reflecting
the change in the new vehicle grace period from two years to four
years. The same methods that were used to prepare the emissions
inventory for the 2004 maintenance plans for Anchorage and Fairbanks
were used. See 69 FR 44601 and 69 FR 34935, respectively. The analysis
in the State's submittal demonstrates that the impact of the revision
of the new vehicle grace period is small, and constitutes a .3%
increase in total area wide emissions for the year 2006, the first year
of the grace period, from 119.7 tons per day to 120.1 tons per day in
Anchorage and a .27% increase in the Fairbanks emissions from 2005-
2015. Given this negligible change in emissions, EPA finds that the
revision in the new vehicle inspection grace period will not impact
continued attainment of the CO standard or any of the other NAAQS in
Anchorage or Fairbanks for the remainder of the maintenance period
approved by EPA in 2004. See 69 FR 44601 and 69 FR 34935, respectively.
    Additionally, the State is well below the standards for the other
NAAQS with the exception of the current 24-hour PM2.5
standard.\8\ Given that the increase in CO emissions from this revision
are less than a half percent, EPA does not believe that
PM2.5 or any of the other NAAQS will increase from this
revision to the extent that it will interfere with attainment of the
NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See EPA's Green Book http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/
index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conclusion
    With the exception of the revision of the grace period for new
vehicle inspection from 2-4 years, the revisions submitted to the
Alaska SIP are administrative changes and updates that will not result
in a change in emissions. The State's analysis of changes in emissions
resulting from the revised grace period indicates that any increases
due to a revision of the grace period for new vehicle inspection from
two to four years are negligible. Therefore, elimination of the I/M
program will not interfere with either the attainment or reasonable
further progress towards attainment of the ambient PM2.5
standard in Fairbanks and EPA proposes to approve the 2006 SIP
revisions.

C. 2002 Submittal

    The March 2002 submittal contains revisions to the Statewide
Inspection and Maintenance Program contained in 18 AAC 52 that: provide
for electronic vehicle registration renewal and remove the requirement
for the paper part of the certificate of inspection to be maintained in
the vehicle, replacing it with display certificates of inspection on
car windshields; and update the Alaska I/M Program Manual from the
manual dated January 2, 2000 to the manual dated February 21, 2002 to
incorporate up to date technology and Federal changes to the on-board
diagnostic or OBDII portion of the I/M program.
EPA's Review and Conclusions on the State's 2002 Submittal
    As stated above, revisions to the I/M program in Alaska are subject
to Section 110(l) of the Act. EPA's review of the State's 2002
submittal finds that these are minor revisions that are administrative
in nature and will not result in an increase or change in CO emissions
since these revisions simplify implementation of the program by moving
from paper systems to electronic systems and update I/M program
elements to reflect updated Federal requirements.\9\ Based on this, EPA
concludes that the 2002 revisions to the I/M program in Alaska will not
interfere with either the attainment or maintenance of the CO standard
or any of the NAAQS or applicable requirements in the Act in Anchorage
and Fairbanks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See 40 CFR 51.358.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on EPA's review of the State's 2002 submittal which finds
that the 2002 revisions to the AK I/M program are administrative in
nature that do not result in any increase or change in emissions, our
review of the 2006 SIP revisions which finds that revision to the I/M
grace period for new vehicles from two years to four years the 2006
revisions would result in a negligible change in CO emissions and our
review of the 2008 submittal which finds that the area will continue to
maintain the CO standard and PM2.5 emissions will decrease
through 2015 without the I/M program in place, we are proposing to
approve the State's 2002, 2006 and 2008 submittals.

D. Technical Correction to the Boundary

    In an e-mail dated February 9, 2009 from Alice Edwards, Acting
Director of the Air Quality Division of the Alaska Department of
Environmental Conservation to Mahbubul Islam, Manager of the State and
Tribal Air Programs Unit, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, Region 10,
EPA was notified of a discrepancy in the description of the boundary of
the Fairbanks Nonattainment Area in the Alaska SIP documents and as
published in 40 CFR Part 81. EPA has reviewed this discrepancy and
determined that the description in 40 CFR 81.302 contains a
transcription error. EPA is, therefore, providing notice of its intent
to amend the boundary for the Fairbanks area in 40 CFR 81.302 to
include the missing phrase included in the boundary description in the
Alaska SIP.
    Section 110 (k)(6) of the Act states:

    Whenever the Administrator determines that the Administrator's
action approving, disapproving, or promulgating any plan or plan
revision (or part thereof), area designation, redesignation,
classification, or reclassification was in error, the Administrator
may in the same manner as the approval, disapproval, or promulgation
revise such action as appropriate without

requiring any further submission from the State. Such determination
and the basis thereof shall be provided to the State and public.

    The table in 40 CFR 81.302 contains the following description of
the Fairbanks Area for Carbon Monoxide:
    Fairbanks Area--Fairbanks Election District (part), Fairbanks
nonattainment area boundary: (1) Township 1 South, Range 1 West,
Sections 2 through 23, the portion of Section 1 west of the Fort
Wainwright military reservation boundary and the portions of Section 24
north of the Old Richardson Highway and west of the military
reservation boundary, also, Township 1 South, Range 2 West, Sections 13
and 24, the portion of Section 12 southwest of Chena Pump Road and the
portions of Sections 7, 8, and 18 and the portion of Section 19 north
of the Richardson Highway. (Fairbanks and Ft. Wainwright) (2) Township
2 South, Range 2 East, the portions of Sections 9 and 10 southwest of
the Richardson Highway. (North Pole.)
    The description of the area in the State Implementation Plan (See
Vol. II Analysis of Problems, Control Actions Section III.C.2-1 of the
SIP (contained in the State's 2006 submittal)) is the following:
    1. The Fairbanks/Fort Wainwright sub-area includes (a) Township 1
South, Range 1 West, Sections 2 through 23, the portion of Section 1
west of the Fort Wainwright military reservation boundary, and the
portions of Section 24 north of the Old Richardson Highway and west of
the military reservation boundary; (b) Township 1 South, Range 2 West,
Sections 13 and 24, the portion of Section 12 southwest of Chena Pump
Road, and the portions of Sections 14 and 23 southeast of the Chena
River; and (c) Township 1 South, Range 1 East, Sections 7, 8, and 18,
and the portions of Section 19 north of the Richardson Highway.
    2. The North Pole sub-area includes Township 2 South, Range 2 East,
and the portions of Section 9 and 10 southwest of the Richardson
Highway.
    EPA's review of the boundary description in the Alaska SIP and the
boundary description on 40 CFR 81.302 finds that the boundary
description in 40 CFR 81.302 is ambiguous as to the eastern portion of
the nonattainment area. The description of the boundary in 40 CFR
81.302 omits the phrase 14 and 23 southeast of the Chena River. Also,
Township 1 South, Range 1 East, Sections and by doing so defines
sections 7, 8 and 19 as being part of Township 1 South Range 2 West.
However, sections 7, 8 and 19 of Township 1 Range South Range 2 West
are noncontiguous with the rest of the Fairbanks nonattainment area
boundary and therefore the description is ambiguous and clearly
erroneous. See Figure 4 of the TSD for this action for a figure of the
Fairbanks area.
    EPA also notes that all previous SIP elements including emissions
inventories and modeling, regulations and contingency measures
submitted by the State and approved by EPA were prepared and
implemented for the area as it was described in the Alaska SIP. EPA
notes that as a result of these planning efforts, the area has attained
the CO standard.
    For these reasons, EPA is under section 110(k)(6) of the Act
correcting the boundary description for the Fairbanks CO area to
include the phrase 14 and 23 southeast of the Chena River. Also,
Township 1 South, Range 1 East, Sections. The corrected version of the
description of the description of the Fairbanks CO area in 40 CFR
81.302 will read in full as follows:

    Fairbanks Area--Fairbanks Election District (part), Fairbanks
nonattainment area boundary: (1) Township 1 South, Range 1 West,
Sections 2 through 23, the portion of Section 1 west of the Fort
Wainwright military reservation boundary and the portions of Section
24 north of the Old Richardson Highway and west of the military
reservation boundary, also, Township 1 South, Range 2 West, Sections
13 and 24, the portion of Section 12 southwest of Chena Pump Road
and the portions of Sections 14 and 23 southeast of the Chena River;
also Township 1 South, Range 1 East, Sections 7, 8, and 18 and the
portion of Section 19 north of the Richardson Highway. (Fairbanks
and Ft. Wainwright). (2) Township 2 South, Range 2 East, the
portions of Sections 9 and 10 southwest of the Richardson Highway.
(North Pole).

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves State law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by State law. For that reason, this 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 Clean Air Act; 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 rule 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

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Hydrocarbons, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.

    Dated: September 8, 2009.
Daniel D. Opalski,
Acting Deputy Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. E9-22208 Filed 9-14-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P