[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 163 (Friday, August 22, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49824-49825]
[FR Doc No: 2014-19913]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[Release No. 34-72857; File No. SR-NYSEMKT-2014-68]

Self-Regulatory Organizations; NYSE MKT LLC; Notice of Filing and
Immediate Effectiveness of Proposed Rule Change Amending Section 332 of
the NYSE MKT Company Guide To Provide That Listed Companies Should Pay
Listing Fees Due in Connection With the Listing of Additional
Securities in the Manner Specified in the Exchange's Invoice

August 18, 2014.
    Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) \1\ of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (the ``Act'') \2\ and Rule 19b-4 thereunder,\3\ notice is hereby
given that on August 12, 2014, NYSE MKT LLC (the ``Exchange'' or ``NYSE
MKT'') filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
``Commission'') the proposed rule change as described in Items I and II
below, which Items have been prepared by the self-regulatory
organization. The Commission is publishing this notice to solicit
comments on the proposed rule change from interested persons.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

    The Exchange proposes to amend Section 332 of the NYSE MKT Company
Guide (the [sic] Company Guide'') to provide that listed companies
should pay listing fees due in connection with the listing of
additional securities in the manner specified in the Exchange's
invoice. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the
Exchange's Web site at www.nyse.com, at the principal office of the
Exchange, and at the Commission's Public Reference Room.

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

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

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

1. Purpose
    The Exchange charges listed companies fees in connection with the
listing of additional shares of a class of listed securities. The rates
at which those fees are charged are established by Section 142 of the
Company Guide. Section 332 of the Company guide specifies that the
submission of a listing application in connection with the listing of
additional securities must be accompanied by a check in the amount of
the applicable listing fee pursuant to Section 142. The Exchange
proposes to amend Section 332 to provide that, rather than having a
listed company submit a check in connection with a listing application,
the Exchange will send an invoice to the listed company upon receipt of
the listing application. The invoice will specify the amount of the
applicable listing fee and will provide instructions as to how the
company should submit its payment. It is the Exchange's expectation for
the foreseeable future that its invoices will provide instructions for
companies to submit payment by wire transfer. The Exchange wishes to
make this change as a matter of internal administrative efficiency and
to avoid any inconvenience to listed companies in the event that checks
are lost. The Exchange does not believe that the change in policy will
impose any significant additional burden on listed companies.
2. Statutory Basis
    The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent
with Section 6(b) \4\ of the Act, in general, and furthers the
objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,\5\ in particular in that it
is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, to
foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating,
clearing, settling, processing information with respect to, and
facilitating transactions in securities, to remove impediments to and
perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market
system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest.
The Exchange believes that the proposed amendment is consistent with
the goal of Section 6(b)(5) to remove

impediments to and perfect the mechanisms of a free and open market
because it simply increases the administrative efficiency with which
the Exchange processes listing applications without substantively
increasing the burden on listed companies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b).
    \5\ 15 U.S.C. 78f(b)(5).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes will
impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate
in furtherance of the purpose of the Act. The proposed rule change will
have no impact on competition as it simply permits a change in the
manner in which listing fees are collected, without changing the amount
of those fees.

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

    No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the
proposed rule change.

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

    The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act \6\ and Rule 19b-4(f)(6) thereunder.\7\
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) significantly affect the
protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any
significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to
30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as
the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of
investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become
effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and Rule 19b-
4(f)(6)(iii) thereunder.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 15 U.S.C. 78s(b)(3)(A)(iii).
    \7\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6).
    \8\ 17 CFR 240.19b-4(f)(6)(iii). As required under Rule 19b-
4(f)(6), the Exchange provided the Commission with written notice of
its intent to file the proposed rule change, along with a brief
description and the text of the proposed rule change, at least five
business days prior to the date of filing of the proposed rule
change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

IV. Solicitation of Comments

    Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and
arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule
change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of
the following methods:

Electronic Comments

     Use the Commission's Internet comment form (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml); or
     Send an email to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please include
File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2014-68 on the subject line.

Paper Comments

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

All submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2014-68. This
file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To
help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently,
please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on
the Commission's Internet Web site (http://www.sec.gov/rules/sro.shtml). Copies of the submission, all subsequent amendments, all
written statements with respect to the proposed rule change that are
filed with the Commission, and all written communications relating to
the proposed rule change between the Commission and any person, other
than those that may be withheld from the public in accordance with the
provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, will be available for Web site viewing and
printing in the Commission's Public Reference Room, 100 F Street NE.,
Washington, DC 20549 on official business days between the hours of
10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. Copies of the filing also will be available
for inspection and copying at the principal office of the Exchange. All
comments received will be posted without change; the Commission does
not edit personal identifying information from submissions. You should
submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All
submissions should refer to File Number SR-NYSEMKT-2014-68 and should
be submitted on or before September 12, 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ 17 CFR 200.30-3(a)(12).

    For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets,
pursuant to delegated authority.\9\
Kevin M. O'Neill,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2014-19913 Filed 8-21-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 40 (Thursday, February 28, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 6732-6736]
[FR Doc No: 2019-03545]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2018-0593; FRL-9989-63-Region 8]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Colorado; Revisions to Regulation Number 3

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing
approval of State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the
State of Colorado on February 25, 2015. We are also proposing approval
of two SIP revisions submitted by the State of Colorado on May 24,
2017. These SIP revisions are necessary for Colorado to incorporate
current federal prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) and
nonattainment new source review (N-NSR) regulations. The intended
effect of this action is to strengthen Colorado's SIP. The EPA is
taking this action pursuant to section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before April 1, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2018-0593, to the Federal Rulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
www.regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment
policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general
guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy.
Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically
in www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Air Program,
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street,
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. The EPA requests that if at all possible,
you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You may view the
hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.,
excluding federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin Leone, Air Program, EPA, Region
8, Mailcode 8P-AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado, 80202-1129,
(303) 312-6227<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean the EPA.

I. Background

    On February 25, 2015, the State of Colorado submitted SIP revisions
to Colorado Air Quality Control Commission Regulation Number 3. On
October 12, 2017 (82 FR 47380), the EPA finalized approval of portions
the February 25, 2015 submittal, specifically: (1) Colorado's revisions
to fine particulate matter (PM2.5) significant impact level
(SIL) and significant monitoring concentration (SMC) provisions; (2)
Revisions to Colorado's air pollution emission notices; and (3)
Revisions to public notice requirements located in Regulation Number 3,
Part B. Therefore, we do not need to take action on these portions of
Colorado's February 25, 2015 submittal since they were acted on

previously. In addition, we are not acting on revisions to Regulation
Number 3, Part C (concerning operating permits) because it is not part
of the SIP. The remaining portions of the February 25, 2015 submittal
include revisions to the state's PSD program, in particular the
definitions of CO2e and regulated NSR pollutant, and the addition of
plantwide applicability limit (PAL) provisions for GHGs. We describe
these revisions and related EPA rulemakings in detail in the next
section.
    On March 24, 2017, the State of Colorado submitted two sets of SIP
revisions to Colorado Air Quality Control Commission Regulation Number
3. The first submittal pertains to the June 23, 2014, U.S. Supreme
Court decision in Utility Air Regulatory Group (UARG) v. EPA. The
second addresses nonattainment NSR applicability in (among other
things) ozone nonattainment areas that have been classified or
reclassified as serious, severe, or extreme. We also describe these
revisions and related EPA rulemakings in detail in the next section.

II. Analysis of Submittals

February 25, 2015 Submittal

Revisions to the Definition of CO2e
    On November 29, 2013, the EPA published a final rulemaking titled:
``2013 Revisions to the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule (Rule) and Final
Confidentiality Determinations for New or Substantially Revised Data
Elements'' (78 FR 71904). In 87 FR 71904, the EPA amended the Rule's
table of global warming potentials (GWPs) to revise the values of
certain greenhouse gases, which are codified in 40 CFR part 98, subpart
A, Table A-1, (Part 98). Part 98 was initially promulgated on October
31, 2009 (74 FR 56260) and requires reporting of GHG's from certain
facilities and suppliers. In this action, Colorado is updating its
definition of CO2e to incorporate the applicable GWPs in Part 98 in
effect as of November 29, 2013. The State's amendment is consistent
with the EPA's regulations and we propose to approve the updated
definition.
Revisions to the Definition of Regulated NSR Pollutant
    In this action, Colorado is updating its definition of ``Regulated
NSR Pollutant'' in response to an October 25, 2012 rulemaking by the
EPA titled: ``Implementation of New Source Review (NSR) Program for
Particulate Matter less than 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5):
Amendment to the definition of `Regulated NSR Pollutant' Concerning
Condensable Particulate Matter (77 FR 65107).'' In that rulemaking, the
EPA removed a general requirement in the definition of ``Regulated NSR
Pollutant'' to include condensable particulate matter (PM) when
measuring one of the emission-related indicators for PM known as
``particulate matter emissions'' in the context of PSD and NSR
regulations. The rulemaking did not change the requirement for
measurement of condensable PM for two other emissions-related
indicators for emissions of PM particles with an aerodynamic diameter
of less than or equal to 10 micrometers (PM10 emissions) and
PM2.5 emissions. The update to Colorado's definition of
``Regulated NSR Pollutant'' is consistent with the EPA's October 25,
2012 rulemaking and we therefore propose to approve it.
    Colorado is also revising its definition of ``Regulated NSR
Pollutant'' with regards to GHGs. The EPA defines ``Regulated NSR
Pollutant'' to include any pollutant subject to any standard
promulgated under the Clean Air Act Section 111. Colorado's revised
definition of ``Regulated NSR Pollutant'' excludes, for the purposes of
the definition, GHG from being considered as subject to any standard
promulgated under the Clean Air Act Section 111. The State notes that
GHGs continue to be a regulated NSR pollutant under the next portion of
the definition, as a ``pollutant subject to regulation.'' Colorado's
revision stems from their concern that the EPA did not revise the
definition of ``Regulated NSR pollutant'' when promulgating CAA section
111(b) standards (known as New Source Performance Standards) for GHG
emissions from new, modified, and reconstructed electric utility
generating units. See 80 FR 64510 (Oct. 23, 2015). We note that the
October 23, 2015 action addressed this by promulgating 40 CFR 60.5515,
which clarifies the meaning within the PSD definition ``regulated NSR
pollutant'' of the phrase ``subject to any standard promulgated under
section 111 of the Act'' for GHGs. Colorado's revision achieves the
same result with respect to the NSPS for electric utility generating
units. We therefore propose to approve it.
GHG PALs
    On July 12, 2012, the EPA published a final rulemaking titled
``Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas
Tailoring Rule Step 3 and GHG Plantwide Applicability Limits'' (77 FR
41051.) This rulemaking represented Step 3 of the EPA's phased-in
approach to permitting sources of GHG emissions as stated in the GHG
Tailoring Rule. The rulemaking promulgated revisions to the federal PSD
program in 40 CFR 52.21 for better implementation of the GHG Tailoring
Rule by providing for PALs for GHG emissions. A PAL establishes a site-
specific plantwide emission level for a pollutant that allows the
source to make changes at the facility without triggering the
requirements of the PSD program, provided that emissions do not exceed
the PAL level. 77 FR 41051, 41052. This streamlining approach provides
for the use of GHG PALs on either a mass (tons per year) or CO2e basis,
which includes the option to use the CO2e based increases provided in
the subject to regulation applicability thresholds in setting the PAL,
and to allow the PALs to be used as an alternative approach for
determining whether a project is a major modification and whether GHG
emissions are subject to regulation.
    The EPA did not adopt the changes into the regulations for state
PSD programs, 40 CFR 51.166, because the changes were not minimum
requirements that must be adopted by states in their SIP-approved PSD
programs. However, we noted that nothing in the rulemaking was intended
to prevent states from adopting the PAL changes in 40 CFR 52.21. into
their approved PSD programs. 77 FR 41070.
    On April 24, 2014, the EPA approved PSD revisions submitted by the
State of Colorado that establish: (1) GHG emissions are a regulated
pollutant under Colorado's NSR PSD program, and (2) emission thresholds
for determining which new stationary sources and modification projects
become subject to Colorado's NSR PSD permitting requirements for their
GHG emissions consistent with the Tailoring Rule. (79 FR 22772.)
Colorado's February 25, 2015 submittal requests to revise its PSD
permitting regulations to correspond to PAL revisions in the EPA's July
12, 2012 rulemaking. Colorado is revising its Part A (General
Provisions Applicable to Reporting and Permitting) and Part D (Major
Stationary Source New Source Review and Prevention of Significant
Deterioration) regulations to incorporate GHG PALs on either a mass
basis or a CO2e basis for existing major PSD sources, or any existing
GHG-only source. These revisions would allow, among other things, that
GHGs shall not be subject to regulation if a stationary source
maintains its total source-wide emissions below the GHG PAL level,
meets the requirements in Part D, and complies with the PAL permit
containing the GHG PAL.
    Colorado's incorporation of GHG PALs still applies to determining

whether sources are subject to regulatory emission thresholds in
setting the PAL, and in allowing the PALs to be used as an alternative
approach for determining whether a project is a major modification and
whether GHG emissions are subject to regulation for ``anyway'' sources.
    Based on our review, we propose to find that Colorado's revisions
are consistent with the EPA's PAL regulations. The docket for this
action contains a crosswalk between the revisions in Colorado's May 24,
2017 submittal and the PAL provisions in 40 CFR 52.21 as revised in the
EPA's July 12, 2012 rulemaking. The crosswalk shows that Colorado has
essentially adopted the GHG PAL revisions unchanged, as suggested by
the preamble to the July 12, 2012 rulemaking.

May 24, 2017 Submittal

Revisions to Regulation Number 3, Part A
    On June 3, 2010, the EPA published a final rule, known as the GHG
Tailoring Rule, which phased in permitting requirements for GHG
emissions from stationary sources under the CAA PSD permitting program
in three steps (75 FR 31514.) Under its interpretation of the CAA at
the time, the EPA determined it was necessary to avoid an unmanageable
increase in the number of sources that would be required to obtain PSD
permits under the CAA because the sources emitted or had the potential
to emit GHGs above the applicable major source and major modification
thresholds. In Step 1 of the GHG Tailoring Rule, the EPA limited
application of PSD requirements to sources only if they were subject to
PSD ``anyway'' due to the emissions of other non-GHG pollutants. These
sources were referred to as ``anyway'' sources. In Step 2 of the GHG
Tailoring Rule, the EPA applied the PSD permitting requirements under
the CAA to sources that were classified as major based solely on their
GHG emissions or potential to emit GHGs, and to modifications of
otherwise major sources that require a PSD permit because they
increased only GHG emissions above the level in the EPA regulations.
    On June 23, 2014, the United States Supreme Court addressed the
application of PSD permitting requirements to GHG emissions. Utility
Air Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency, 134 S.Ct. 2427
(2014). The Supreme Court held that the EPA may not treat GHGs as an
air pollutant for purposes of determining whether a source is a major
source required to obtain a PSD permit. The Court also held that the
EPA could continue to require that PSD permits, otherwise required
based on emissions of pollutants other than GHGs (anyway sources),
contain limitations on GHG emissions based on the application of Best
Available Control Technology (BACT).
    In accordance with the Supreme Court decision, on April 10, 2015,
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (the
D.C. Circuit) in Coalition for Responsible Regulation v. EPA, 606 F.
App'x. 6, at *7-8 (DC Cir. April 10, 2015), issued an amended judgment
vacating the regulations that implemented Step 2 of the EPA's PSD and
Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule. Step 2 applied to sources that
emitted only GHGs above the thresholds triggering the requirement to
obtain a PSD permit. The amended judgment preserves, without the need
for additional rulemaking by the EPA, the application of the BACT
requirement to GHG emissions from Step 1 or ``anyway sources.'' With
respect to Step 2 sources, the D.C. Circuit's amended judgment vacated
the regulations at issue in the litigation, including 40 CFR
51.166(b)(48)(v) and 52.21(b)(49)(v) ``to the extent they require a
stationary source to obtain a PSD permit if greenhouse gases are the
only pollutant (i) that the source emits or has the potential to emit
above the applicable major source thresholds, or (ii) for which there
is a significant emission increase from a modification.''
    In accordance with the D.C. Circuit's amended judgment, on August
19, 2015, the EPA published a final rulemaking titled: ``Prevention of
Significant Deterioration and Title V Permitting for Greenhouse Gases:
Removal of Vacated Elements.'' In this rulemaking, the EPA removed GHG
Tailoring Rule Step 2 PSD permitting requirements in 40 CFR
51.166(b)(48)(v) and 40 CFR 52.21(b)(49)(v) from the CFR.
    In response to the court's decision and the subsequent EPA
rulemaking, the May 24, 2017 submittal revises the definition of
``subject to regulation'' by removing Regulation 3, Part A, Section
I.B.44.e. from the regulation. The removal is consistent with the EPA's
revised definition of ``subject to regulation''; we therefore propose
to approve it.
Revisions to Regulation Number 3, Part D
    Colorado is revising their definition of ``major stationary
source'' contained in Regulation Number 3, Part D, Section II, the
nonattainment NSR program, to include the ozone nonattainment area
major source thresholds. This revision is consistent with the federal
definition for ``major stationary source'' located in 40 CFR
51.165(a)(1)(iv)(A)(1). Colorado's current definition of ``major
stationary source'' does not contain thresholds for determining what is
a major source based on ozone nonattainment area classification. Thus,
if an ozone nonattainment area were ever classified, or reclassified as
serious, severe, or extreme, Colorado would need to adopt the same
lower major source thresholds that would apply on a federal basis
before permitting new or modified sources. Therefore, should a Colorado
moderate ozone nonattainment area ever be reclassified to a more
stringent classification, this revision to the definition of ``major
stationary source'' ensures consistency with the federal definition and
provides regulatory certainty if Colorado's ozone nonattainment area
should ever be reclassified. We propose to approve these changes as
they are consistent with the EPA's regulation.
    Colorado is also revising their definition of ``major emissions
unit'' in the PAL provisions for the PSD program. The federal
definition for ``major emissions unit'' located in 40 CFR
51.166(w)(2)(iv)(b) contains both a meaning of the phrase and an
example of when an emissions unit would be a major emissions unit for
volatile organic compounds (VOC) if the emissions unit were located in
a serious ozone nonattainment area. The revision removes the example
from Colorado's provision. We propose to approve this change to the SIP
because the state has updated the definition of ``major stationary
source'' in the nonattainment NSR program to reflect the thresholds for
serious, severe, and extreme ozone nonattainment areas, and the first
part of Colorado's definition for ``major emissions unit'' refers to
this updated definition.
    Colorado is also revising their definition of ``significant'' in
the nonattainment NSR program. Currently, Colorado's definition of
``significant'' does not contain emissions rates pertaining to serious,
severe, or extreme ozone nonattainment areas. Colorado's revision to
their definition of ``significant'' is consistent with the serious,
severe, or extreme ozone thresholds located in 40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(x).
The EPA proposes to approve this change.

III. What are the changes that EPA is proposing to approve?

    Except for the revisions the EPA acted on previously in 82 FR
47380, we are

proposing to approve all of the changes as submitted by the State of
Colorado on February 25, 2015, and May 24, 2017, as outlined in Tables
1 and 2 below.

 Table 1--List of February 2015 Colorado Revisions That EPA Is Proposing
                               To Approve
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Revised sections in February 25, 2015 submission proposed for approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation Number 3, Part A:
    I.B.10, I.B.23., I.B.25.c., I.B.28, I.B.28.e., I.B.43., I.B.44.b.,
     I.B.44.c., I.B.44.e., V.C.6-8., V.C.12., V.I.1.
Regulation Number 3, Part B:
    N/A.
Regulation Number 3, Part C:
    N/A.
Regulation Number 3, Part D:
    I.A.2., I.A.3., I.B.1., I.B.2., I.B.3., I.C., II.A.1.d., II.A.2,
     II.A.4., II.A.4.e.-f., II.A.5.c.,II.A.13.a., II.A.13.a.(i)-(ii),
     II.A.13.b., II.A.13.b.(i)-(ii), II.A.16.-22., II.A.22.a-c.,II.A.23-
     31., II.A.32-35, II.A.36-39, .., , II.A.40.a.-c., II.A.40.d,
     II.A.40.e.-g., II.A.41-45.,., II.A.46, II.A.46.a-b, II.A.47,
     II.A.47.a-b, II.A.48, V.A.3.c, V.A.7.c., V.A.7.c.(i)(C).,
     V.A.7.c.(v)., VI.A.6.,VI.B.5., VI.B.5.a.(iii).,VI.B.5.e.; XV.A.1.;
     XV.A.2.; XV.A.2.c-d; XV.A.3; XV.B; XV.B.1; XV.B.4.; XV.C.1.;
     XV.C.1.a.; XV.C.1.d.; XV.C.1.g; XV.D.; XV.E.1.; XV.E.4; XV.E.6.;
     XV.E.6.a.; XV.E.6.b; XV.E.6.c.; XV.F.; XV.F.1.; XV.F.3.; XV.F.5.;
     XV.F.6.; XV.F.7.; XV.F.11; XV.G.2.b.; XV.H.1.a.; XV.H.4.; XV.H.5.;
     XV.I.1.; XV.I.2.; XV.I.4.c.(i)-(ii); XV.J.1.; XV.J.1.a.; XV.J.1.b.;
     XV.K.1.a: XV.N.1.b; XV.N.1.d.; and XV.N.2.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Table 2--List of May 2017 Colorado Revisions That EPA Is Proposing To
                                 Approve
------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Revised sections in May 24, 2017 submissions proposed for approval
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulation Number 3, Part A:
    I.B.44.e.
Regulation Number 3, Part B:
    N/A.
Regulation Number 3, Part C:
    N/A.
Regulation Number 3, Part D:
    II.A.22.b II.A.25.b; II.A.44.a.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA
rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to
incorporate by reference the amendments described in section III. The
EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials generally
available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 8 Office
(please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this preamble for more information).

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. 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 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 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 the EPA with the discretionary authority
to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or
environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the proposed rule does not have tribal implications and
will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or
preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    Dated: February 22, 2019.
Douglas Benevento,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2019-03545 Filed 2-27-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: March 27, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 58)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 15098-15105]
[DOCID:fr27mr06-32]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 51

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0079; FRL-8049-4]
RIN 2060-AN26

Implementation of the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standard--Phase 1: Reconsideration

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of public hearing; reopening comment
period.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is requesting comment on the overwhelming transport
classification for 8-hour ozone nonattainment areas as requested in a
petition for reconsideration of EPA's final rule to implement the 8-
hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS or standard).
We are requesting comment on the draft guidance document entitled
``Criteria For Assessing Whether an Ozone Nonattainment Area is
Affected by Overwhelming Transport,'' and we are reopening the comment
period on our proposed rule regarding how the Clean Air Act (CAA)
section 172 requirements would apply to an area that might receive an
overwhelming transport classification. In the Phase 1 Rule to Implement
the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS we stated that we were considering the comments
we received on the issue of applicable requirements for these subpart 1
areas and would address them when we issued guidance on assessing
overwhelming transport. Consequently, today's action takes comment on
the overwhelming transport guidance and on the applicable requirements
that would apply to areas receiving the overwhelming transport
classification. In addition, EPA is holding a public hearing on April
12, 2006.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 12, 2006 on both the
proposed rule and reopening on the June 2, 2003 proposal. A public
hearing will be held in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, on
April 12, 2006, and will convene at 10 a.m. and will end when those
preregistered to provide testimony have done so and when others in
attendance at that time have had an opportunity to do so. Because of
the need to resolve the issues in this document in a timely manner, EPA
will not grant requests for extensions of the public comment period.
For additional information on the public hearing, see the ADDRESSEES
section of this preamble.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-
OAR-2003-0079, by one of the following methods:
     http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line

instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Attention Docket ID No.
EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0079.
     Fax: The fax number of the Air Docket is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
Attention Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0079.

     Mail: EPA Docket Center, EPA West (Air Docket), Attention
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0079, Environmental Protection Agency,
Mail Code: 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
     Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center (Air Docket), Attention
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0079, Environmental Protection Agency,
1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room B102, Washington, DC. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-
2003-0079. The EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
on-line 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 Federal http://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 e-mail comment directly to 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, 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. For additional information about EPA's public
docket, visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm
.

    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.govindex.
 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 at the EPA Docket Center (Air

Docket), EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone
number for the Public Reading Room is<PHONE_NUMBER> and the fax number
is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Public Hearing. A public hearing will be held on April 12, 2006,
beginning at 10 a.m. and ending when those preregistered to provide
testimony have done so and when others in attendance at that time have
had an opportunity to do so. The public hearing will be held at the
Environmental Protection Agency, Building C, Room C111A, 109 T.W.
Alexander Drive, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27709. Persons
wishing to speak at the public hearing need to contact: Ms. Pamela
Long, at telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER> or by e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Oral testimony may be limited to 3 to 5 minutes

depending on the number of people who sign up to speak. Commenters may
also supplement their oral testimony with written comments. The hearing
will be limited to the subject matter of this document. The public
hearing schedule, including the list of speakers, will be posted on
EPA's Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ozone/o3imp8hr. A

verbatim transcript of the hearing and written statements will be made
available for copying during normal working hours at the EPA Docket
Center (Air Docket) at the address listed above for inspection of
documents.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For general information: Mr. John
Silvasi, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code C539-02, Research Triangle
Park, NC 27711, phone number<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax number<PHONE_NUMBER>
or by e-mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or Ms. Denise Gerth, Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Mail Code C539-02, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, phone number (919)
541-5550, fax number<PHONE_NUMBER> or by e-mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

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

Outline

I. General Information
II. Background
III. Today's Action
    A. Invitation for Comment on Draft Guidance on Criteria for
Assessing Whether an Ozone Nonattainment Area Is Affected by
Overwhelming Transport
    B. Proposed Requirements That Apply to Subpart 1 Ozone Areas
that Receive the Overwhelming Transport Classification
    1. General Background
    2. Requirements for RACT/RACM
    3. Attainment Demonstration
    4. Reasonable Further Progress
    5. Contingency Measures
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations

II. Background

    In the Final Rule to Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standard (NAAQS or

standard)--Phase 1 Rule--(April 30, 2004; 69 FR 23951), we established
an ``overwhelming transport area'' (OTA) classification for certain
areas that were not subject to classification under subpart 2 of part D
of the CAA and were thus subject only to subpart 1 (subpart 1 ozone
areas). We established three criteria that subpart 1 ozone areas must
meet to receive the overwhelming transport classification:
     The area meets the criteria as specified for rural
transport areas under section 182(h) of the CAA;
     Transport of ozone and/or precursors into the area is so
overwhelming that the contribution of local emissions to observed 8-
hour ozone concentration above the level of the NAAQS is relatively
minor; and
     The Administrator finds that sources of volatile organic
compounds (VOC) and, where the Administrator determines relevant,
nitrogen oxides (NOX) emissions within the area do not make
a significant contribution to the ozone concentrations measured in
other areas.
    In the preamble of the Phase 1 Rule, we explained that an area will
be classified as an OTA upon full approval of an analysis that
demonstrates that the nonattainment problem in the area is due to
``overwhelming transport.'' We indicated that we would issue guidance
more fully explaining how to assess whether an area was affected by
overwhelming transport. We indicated that the existing guidance on
overwhelming transport needed to be updated and that we were retracting
that guidance.
    On June 29, 2004, Earthjustice filed a Petition for Reconsideration
(Petition) on behalf of several environmental organizations, seeking
reconsideration of certain specified aspects of the Phase 1 Rule. We
responded to the Petition in letters dated September 23, 2004 and
January 10, 2005 granting some aspects of their Petition and denying
others. In the January 10, 2005 letter, we granted reconsideration of
the overwhelming transport classification because the overwhelming
transport guidance was not publicly available during the comment period
on the Phase 1 Rule. We also stated that we would request public
comments on our draft revision of the overwhelming transport guidance
and simultaneously reopen the comment period of the June 2, 2003 (68 FR
32802) proposed rule to implement the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Specifically,
we are reopening the comment period on section VI.4. of the June 2,
2003 proposed rule (68 FR 32813) that addresses the provisions that
would apply to OTAs.
    Today, we are providing additional information and soliciting
comment on issues related to the overwhelming transport classification.
We are soliciting comment on the following three issues, which are
described in more detail in section III of this preamble: (1)
Overwhelming transport classification; (2) the overwhelming transport
guidance, which provides more detail on the analyses that can be used
to show whether an area meets the second and third eligibility
criteria; and (3) the control requirements that apply under subpart 1
to an area that receives the OTA classification.

III. Today's Action

A. Invitation for Comment on Draft Guidance on Criteria for Assessing
Whether an Ozone Nonattainment Area Is Affected by Overwhelming
Transport

Criteria for Determining Overwhelming Transport
    a. Background. The Phase 1 Rule established Sec.  51.904(a), in
which we created an overwhelming transport classification that would be
available to subpart 1 ozone areas that demonstrate: (1) They meet the
definition of a rural transport area in section 182(h); (2) they are
significantly affected by overwhelming transport from one or more
upwind areas; and (3) their emissions do not significantly affect a
downwind area.
    Qualifying areas under the current rule are those that meet that
part of the definition of a rural transport area in section 182(h) that
requires that an area not be in or adjacent to a C/MSA.\1\ We are aware
of only seven subpart 1 ozone areas that could potentially qualify
under the portion of Sec.  51.904(a)(1) which requires that the area
not be in or adjacent to a C/MSA:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ CSMA means either Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area
or Metropolitan Statistical Area as defined by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) in 1999 (June 30, 1999; 64 FR 35548).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. Hancock, Knox, Lincoln and Waldo Counties, Maine;
    2. Essex County, New York (Whiteface Mountain);
    3. Murray County, Georgia (Chattahoochee National Forest);
    4. Benzie County, Michigan;
    5. Door County, Wisconsin;
    6. Huron County, Michigan; and
    7. Mason County, Michigan.
    The EPA's June 2, 2003 proposal referenced an EPA guidance document
that States should use when developing their demonstration that
contribution of sources in one or more other areas are an overwhelming
cause of air quality violations in the area relating to the
overwhelming transport classification. However, at the time we issued
the final Phase 1 Rule, we noted that the overwhelming transport
guidance needed to be updated and that we would address the control
requirements applicable to OTAs in the Phase 2 Rule. In the Phase 2
Rule that we issued on November 29, 2005 (70 FR 71612), we stated that
we granted reconsideration of the overwhelming transport classification
on January 10, 2005 and intended to publish a proposed rule on the
overwhelming transport classification in the future. As a result, we
did not take final action on the control requirements applicable to
OTAs in the Phase 2 Rule but stated that we planned to address them in
the proposed rule on the overwhelming transport classification. Today's
action takes comment on both the overwhelming transport guidance and
the control requirements applicable to areas that receive the
overwhelming transport classification. As noted above, the Petition
stated that the provision for an overwhelming transport classification
in the Phase 1 Rule relies on guidance that was not publicly available
during the comment period and that the guidance was still unavailable
at the time the Petition was submitted.
    b. Request for Comment. On January 10, 2005, we granted the
Petition on this issue and are now soliciting comment on the
overwhelming transport classification as well as the draft guidance
document, ``Criteria For Assessing Whether an Ozone Nonattainment Area
is Affected by Overwhelming Transport,'' which is found at the
following Internet Web site: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/scram/. This draft

guidance outlines EPA's recommended approach for demonstrating that an
area should receive the OTA classification.
    As described in the draft guidance, the Phase 1 Rule established
three criteria an area must meet for the area to be classified as an
OTA [Sec.  51.904(a)]. Two of these criteria are the focus of the
overwhelming transport guidance. The two criteria concern: (1) Whether
an area is being affected by overwhelming transport; and (2) whether
the area is significantly contributing to another nonattainment area.
Analyses for both of these criteria will involve assembling emissions,
air quality, meteorological, and/or photochemical grid modeling data;
and making an informed decision regarding contribution based on the
results of the composite set of analyses. This aggregation of data is
generally referred to as ``weight of evidence'' and is discussed in
detail in EPA modeling

guidance on 8-hour ozone attainment demonstrations.\2\ The end product
of this weight of evidence determination is a document which describes
analyses performed, data bases used, key assumptions and outcomes of
each analysis, and why a State believes that the evidence, viewed as a
whole, supports a conclusion that the area is overwhelmingly affected
by transport and does not significantly contribute to downwind
problems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Guidance on the Use of Models and Other Analyses in
Attainment Demonstrations for the 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS (EPA-454-05-
002, October 2005). http://www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance/guide/8-hour-o3-guidance-final-version
[1]pdf.

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

    It is expected that an area petitioning for an OTA classification
would complete a full analysis consisting of evidence from multiple
forms of weight of evidence analyses as described within this guidance.
For an area to be classified as an OTA, the large majority of the tests
identified in the ``Criteria for Assessing Whether an Ozone
Nonattainment Area is Affected by Overwhelming Transport'' would have
to meet the criteria of Sec.  51.904(a)(2) and (3).

B. Proposed Requirements That Apply to Subpart 1 Ozone Areas That
Receive the Overwhelming Transport Classification

1. General Background
    Subpart 1 ozone areas are subject to the requirements of section
172(c) of the CAA. The plan provisions required to be submitted under
section 172(c) include reasonably available control technology (RACT)
and reasonably available control measure (RACM) plans, attainment
demonstrations, reasonable further progress (RFP) plans, emission
inventories, new source review (NSR) plans, and contingency measures.
In the June 2, 2003 proposal (68 FR 32814), we proposed that a subpart
1 ozone area classified as an OTA would be treated similar to an area
classified as marginal under subpart 2 for purposes of emission control
requirements. We are reopening the comment period on a number of these
proposed requirements, as described below, and we are also providing
additional detail regarding these requirements.
    We are not proposing that areas classified as overwhelming
transport be treated differently than other subpart 1 areas for
purposes of NSR, conformity and emissions inventory requirements. Thus,
this proposal does not address these requirements.
2. Requirements for RACT/RACM
    a. Background. Section 172(c)(1) of the CAA requires implementation
of all RACT/RACM as expeditiously as practicable. For subpart 1 ozone
areas, we proposed on June 2, 2003 an option interpreting RACT for
ozone nonattainment areas for the 8-hour NAAQS similar to the Agency's
interpretation for pollutants other than ozone (68 FR 32838). Under
this option, for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, if the area is able to
demonstrate attainment of the standard as expeditiously as practicable
with emission control measures in the SIP, then RACT will be met, and
additional measures would not be required as being reasonably
available. However, we did not directly propose RACT requirements for
OTA areas and only proposed that ``* * * the area would be treated
similar to areas classified marginal under subpart 2 for purposes of
emission control requirements.''
    b. Request for Comment. We are reopening the comment period, with
respect to OTAs only, on the proposed approach described above for the
RACT/RACM requirements. Section 172(c)(1) establishes the requirements
for subpart 1 and RACT is included as a subset of RACM. Our long-
standing interpretation of the RACM provision is that areas need only
submit such RACM as will contribute to timely attainment and meet RFP,
and that measures which might be available but would not advance
attainment or contribute to RFP need not be considered RACM. This
interpretation has been upheld in several recent court cases. See
Sierra Club v. EPA, 294 F.39 155, 162 (DC Cir., 2002) (concerning the
Metropolitan Washington, DC, attainment demonstration) and Sierra Club
v. EPA, No. 01-60537 (5th Cir., 2002) (concerning the Beaumont
attainment demonstration). Since subpart 1 RACT is a subset of RACM,
these cases also support a conclusion that, where we are dealing only
with section 172 RACT, it is reasonable to require only such RACT as
will meet RFP and advance attainment. Consistent with our
interpretation of RACM, EPA believes RACT would be met by control
measures in a SIP demonstrating attainment of the standard as
expeditiously as practicable and meeting RFP. Additionally, this
approach has the benefit of providing States with flexibility to
determine which control strategies are the most effective in reaching
attainment as expeditiously as practicable. Specifically, we are
proposing that a State would be considered to meet the RACT/RACM
requirements for an OTA by submitting an attainment demonstration SIP
demonstrating that the area will attain as expeditiously as
practicable.
3. Attainment Demonstration
    a. Background. Section 172(c)(1) of the CAA requires subpart 1
ozone areas to submit plan provisions that provide for attainment of
the NAAQS. General requirements for an attainment demonstration are
contained in 40 CFR 51.112. The June 2, 2003 proposal did not propose
requirements for the attainment demonstration for OTAs, but only
proposed that ``* * * the area would be treated similar to areas
classified marginal under subpart 2 for purposes of emission control
requirements'' and marginal areas are not required to submit attainment
demonstrations (see CAA section 182(a), last paragraph prior to
paragraph (b)).
    b. Request for Comment. The proposal noted that regional scale
modeling for national rules, such as the NOX SIP Call and
Tier II motor vehicle tailpipe standards, projects major ozone benefits
for the 3-year period of 2004-2006. In addition, subsequent modeling
used to support the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) indicates that
regional control measures will be sufficient to bring many areas into
attainment no later than 2010. As described in section VI.B.1, of the
Air Quality Modeling Technical Support Document for the final CAIR, we
project that all of the potential OTAs would be attainment for the 8-
hour ozone standard under the assumptions in the 2010 base case. Thus,
we anticipate all OTAs will be in attainment by 2010 without adopting
additional local controls.
    We believe that an OTA should not be required to perform the
detailed photochemical grid modeling needed to develop an attainment
demonstration where there is existing modeling that shows that the area
will attain in the short term. It would not be reasonable to require
these areas to expend the amount of resources needed to perform a
complex modeling analysis. Since attainment in the OTA is dependent on
control measures chosen and adopted by the upwind nonattainment areas,
an attainment demonstration specific to an OTA would be redundant. We
anticipate that OTAs will be included in State, regional or national
modeling analyses conducted by other, upwind nonattainment areas or by
EPA. Where such modeling exists, it could be used to demonstrate
attainment of an OTA. The demonstration must include modeling results
and analyses that the State is relying on to support its claim.

Such modeling should be consistent with EPA guidance and should be
applicable and appropriate for the area.\3\ Because it is impossible
for an OTA to demonstrate attainment on its own due to their nature,
the attainment demonstration for the area must rely, to a significant
extent, on control of sources outside the OTA. Consequently, as noted
in the Phase 2 ozone implementation rule, we intend to determine on a
case-by-case basis whether the area submitting an attainment
demonstration that is upwind of an OTA needs to commit to submit a mid-
course review (MCR). Such a MCR would serve the purpose of determining
whether the OTA area is on track to attain the 8-hour standard by its
attainment date as well as whether the upwind area is on track.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ If an assessment indicates that a regional modeling analysis
is not applicable to a particular nonattainment area, additional
local modeling would be required.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We therefore propose that a State must submit a modeled
demonstration of attainment that addresses the OTA and shows that the
OTA will attain as expeditiously as practicable, but the State may rely
on prior modeling. We propose that no additional modeled attainment
demonstration would need to be developed for OTAs where (1) Upwind
areas complete attainment demonstrations with modeling domains
including the OTA or (2) regional or national modeling exists that is
appropriate for use in the area shows that the OTA attains as
expeditiously as practicable.
    In the Phase 1 Rule, we provided that we would approve an
attainment date consistent with the attainment date timing provision of
section 172(a)(2)(A) at the time we approve an attainment demonstration
for the area [Sec.  51.904(b)]. We believe the section 172(a)(2)(A)
provisions that allow an area to have an attainment date up to 10 years
following designation (based on the severity of the nonattainment and
the availability and feasibility of controls) would allow consideration
for OTAs of the attainment dates of upwind nonattainment areas that
contribute to the downwind area's problem, and the implementation
schedules for controls in upwind areas that contribute.
4. Reasonable Further Progress
    a. Background. Section 172(c)(2) of the CAA requires subpart 1
ozone areas to submit plan provisions which require RFP. The June 2,
2003 proposal did not discuss the requirement for RFP specifically for
OTAs. However, we did propose that, generally, OTAs would be treated
similar to areas classified as marginal under subpart 2 for purposes of
emission control requirements.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Areas classified marginal under subpart 2 are not subject to
RFP requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    b. Request for Comment. Similar to the approach followed in the
final Phase 2 Rule for subpart 1 areas with attainment dates within 5
years after designation, we propose that an OTA with an approved
attainment demonstration would be considered to have met the RFP
obligation with the measures that will bring the area into attainment
by the area's attainment date. That is, RFP is met by demonstrating the
area could attain the standard as expeditiously as practicable.
However, an OTA's attainment date will depend on when controls in
upwind areas will be implemented. Thus, an OTA may have an attainment
date that is later than 6 years after designation. Because an OTA will
have little control over the emissions reductions needed for
attainment, we are proposing that regardless of the OTA's attainment
date, RFP will be met so long as the area demonstrates attainment as
expeditiously as practicable. We request additional comment on this
position.
5. Contingency Measures
    a. Background. Under the CAA, subpart 1 ozone areas must include in
their SIPs contingency measures consistent with section 172(c)(9). The
general requirements for nonattainment plans under section 172(c)(9)
specify that each plan must contain additional measures that will take
effect without further action by the State or EPA if an area either
fails to meet a RFP milestone or to attain the 8-hour ozone standard by
the applicable date. Contingency measures must accompany the attainment
demonstration SIP. All subpart 1 ozone areas and subpart 2 areas other
than marginal areas need contingency measures. The June 2, 2003
proposal did not discuss the requirement for contingency measures
specifically for OTAs. However, we did propose that ``* * * the area
would be treated similar to areas classified marginal under subpart 2
for purposes of emission control requirements'' and marginal areas are
not required to submit contingency measures (see CAA section 182(a),
last paragraph prior to paragraph (b)).
    b. Request for Comment. By definition [Sec.  51.904(a)(2)], the
contribution of local emissions to observed ozone concentrations in the
OTA is relatively minor. Thus, the effect of local control measures,
including contingency measures from sources in the OTA, would also be
minor. The EPA believes more effective contingency measures will be
contained in the upwind areas' SIPs. Because upwind areas contribute
overwhelmingly to nonattainment in the downwind OTA, we believe that
OTAs may rely on contingency measures adopted by the upwind
contributing areas; however, such contingency measures must be
structured to be triggered by a failure in the OTA itself to make
reasonable RFP or attain the standard by the applicable date.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and, therefore, subject to OMB review and the requirements of the
Executive Order. The Order defines ``significant regulatory action'' as
one that is likely to result in a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public
health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive Order.
    Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been
determined that this proposed rule is a ``significant regulatory
action'' because it raises novel legal or policy issues arising out of
legal mandates. As such this action will be submitted to OMB for
review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this rule will be
addressed along with those covering the Phase 1 Rule (April 30, 2004;
69 FR 23951) and the Phase 2 Rule (November 29, 2005; 70 FR 71612)
which will be submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork
Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The information collection
requirements are not enforceable until OMB approves them other than to
the extent required by statute.
    This rule provides an optional framework for the States to develop
SIPs

for certain areas (viz., those affected by overwhelming transport of
ozone and its precursors) to achieve a new or revised NAAQS. This
framework reflects the requirements prescribed in CAA sections 110 and
part D, subpart 1 of title I. In that sense, the present final rule
does not establish any new information collection burden on States. Had
this rule not been developed, States would still have the legal
obligation under law to submit nonattainment area SIPs under part D of
title I of the CAA within specified periods after their nonattainment
designation for the 8-hour ozone standard, and the SIPs would have to
meet the requirements of part D; however, without this rule, a few
States would have less flexibility in planning for the areas noted
above.
    This rule does not establish requirements that directly affect the
general public and the public and private sectors, but, rather,
interprets the statutory requirements that apply to States in preparing
their SIPs. The SIPs themselves will likely establish requirements that
directly affect the general public, and the public and private sectors.
    The EPA has not yet projected cost and hour burden for the
statutory SIP development obligation but has started that effort and
will shortly prepare an Information Collection Request (ICR) request.
However, EPA did estimate administrative costs at the time of
promulgation of the 8-hour ozone standard in 1997. See Chapter 10 of
U.S. EPA 1997, Regulatory Impact Analyses for the Particulate Matter
and Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards, Innovative Strategies
and Economics Group, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards,
Research Triangle Park, N.C., July 16, 1997. Assessments of some of the
administrative cost categories identified as a part of the SIP for an
8-hour standard are already conducted as a result of other provisions
of the CAA and associated ICRs (e.g. emission inventory preparation,
air quality monitoring program, conformity assessments, NSR, inspection
and maintenance program).
    The burden estimates in the ICR for this rule are incremental to
what is required under other provisions of the CAA and what would be
required under a 1-hour standard. Burden means the total time, effort,
or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain,
retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency.
This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire,
install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of
collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and
maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information;
adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable
instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to
a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review
the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the
information.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When this ICR is
approved by OMB, the Agency will publish a technical amendment to 40
CFR part 9 in the Federal Register to display the OMB control number
for the approved information collection requirements contained in this
final rule. However, the failure to have an approved ICR for this rule
does not affect the statutory obligation for the States to submit SIPs
as required under part D of the CAA.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an Agency to
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative
Procedures Act or any other statute unless the Agency certifies the
rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses,
small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed rule on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that
is a small industrial entity as defined in the U.S. Small Business
Administration (SBA) size standards (See 13 CFR 12.201); (2) a
governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town,
school district or special district with a population of less than
50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit
enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
    In promulgating the Phase 1 and Phase 2 Rules, we concluded that
those actions did not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. For those same reasons, I certify
that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. This proposed rule will not
impose any requirements on small entities. We continue to be interested
in the potential impacts of our proposed rules on small entities and
welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and Tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including Tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
    The EPA has determined that this proposed rule does not contain a
Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more
for State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the
private sector in any 1 year. In promulgating the Phase 1 and Phase 2
Rules, we concluded that it was not subject to the requirements of
sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. For those same reasons, our
reconsideration and reopening of the comment period

on the proposed rule is not subject to the UMRA.
    The EPA has determined that this proposed rule contains no
regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including Tribal governments.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. This proposed reconsideration
requests comment on a broader applicability of the overwhelming
transport classification and reopens the public comment period on the
proposed rule on how the CAA section 172 requirements would apply. For
the same reasons stated in the Phase 1 and Phase 2 Rules, Executive
Order 13132 does not apply to this proposed rule.
    In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA
policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local
governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule
from State and local officials.

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

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by Tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have Tribal implications.'' This proposed rule does not
have ``Tribal implications'' as specified in Executive Order 13175.
    The purpose of this proposed rule is to reopen the comment period
on the proposed rule on how the CAA section 172 requirements would
apply to such areas. These issues concern the implementation of the 8-
hour ozone standard in areas designated nonattainment for that
standard. The CAA provides for States and Tribes to develop plans to
regulate emissions of air pollutants within their jurisdictions. The
Tribal Authority Rule (TAR) gives Tribes the opportunity to develop and
implement CAA programs such as the 8-hour ozone NAAQS, but it leaves to
the discretion of the Tribes whether to develop these programs and
which programs, or appropriate elements of a program, they will adopt.
    For the same reasons stated in the Phase 1 and Phase 2 Rules, this
proposed rule does not have Tribal implications as defined by Executive
Order 13175. It does not have a substantial direct effect on one or
more Indian Tribes, since no Tribe has implemented a CAA program to
attain the 8-hour ozone NAAQS at this time. Furthermore, this proposed
rule does not affect the relationship or distribution of power and
responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian Tribes. The
CAA and the TAR establish the relationship of the Federal government
and Tribes in developing plans to attain the NAAQS, and this proposed
rule does nothing to modify that relationship. Because this proposed
rule does not have Tribal implications, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply.
    While the proposed rule would have Tribal implications upon a Tribe
that is implementing such a plan, it would not impose substantial
direct costs upon it nor would it preempt Tribal law.
    Although Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this proposed
rule, EPA contacted Tribal environmental professionals about the
development of this proposed rule on the ``Tribal Designations and
Implementation Work Group'' conference call; a subsequent meeting
summary was sent to over 50 Tribes.

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

    Executive Order 13045: ``Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any
rule that (1) is determined to be ``economically significant'' as
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health or
safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    This proposed rule addresses one aspect of the Phase 1 Rule that
the Agency was requested to reconsider and reopens the comment period
on the proposed rule on how the CAA section 172 requirements would
apply to such areas. The proposed rule is not subject to Executive
Order 13045 because the Agency does not have reason to believe the
environmental health risks or safety risks addressed by this action
present a disproportionate risk to children. Nonetheless, we have
evaluated the environmental health or safety effects of the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS on children. The results of this evaluation are contained
in 40 CFR part 50, National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone,
Final Rule (July 18, 1997; 62 FR 38855-38896, specifically, 62 FR 38860
and 62 FR 38865).

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This proposed rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as
defined in Executive Order 13211, ``Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001)
because it is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy. This proposed rule affects only
a small number of relatively rural areas by its very nature. Recent EPA
modeling projects that all of these areas will attain the 8-hour ozone
by 2010 without any additional local emission controls.\5\ It does not
require States or sources to take any particular actions, but merely
provides an alternate mechanism for States to plan for attainment of
such areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Technical Support Document for the Final Clean Air
Interstate Rule Air Quality Modeling, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency; Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research
Triangle Park, NC 27711. March 2005. Appendix E. Average Ambient and
Projected 2010 and 2015 Base and CAIR Control 8-hour Ozone
Concentrations. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/cair/pdfs/finaltech02.pdf
.

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

I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law No. 104-113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272
note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its
regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary

consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials
specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business
practices) that are developed or adopted by VCS bodies. The NTTAA
directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the
Agency decides not to use available and applicable VCS.
    This proposed rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any VCS.
    The EPA will encourage the States and Tribes to consider the use of
such standards, where appropriate, in the development of the
implementation plans.

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

    Executive Order 12898 requires that each Federal agency make
achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and
addressing, as appropriate, disproportionate high and adverse human
health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and
activities on minorities and low-income populations.
    The EPA concluded that the Phase 1 and Phase 2 Rules should not
raise any environmental justice issues; for the same reasons, this
proposal should not raise any environmental justice issues. The health
and environmental risks associated with ozone were considered in the
establishment of the 8-hour, 0.08 ppm ozone NAAQS. The level is
designed to be protective with an adequate margin of safety. The
proposed rule provides a framework for improving environmental quality
and reducing health risks for areas that may be designated
nonattainment.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 51

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: March 21, 2006.
William L. Wehrum,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, Title 40, Chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations, is proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 51--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart X--Provisions for Implementation of the 8-Hour Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard

    2. Section 51.919 is added to read as follows:

Sec.  51.919  What requirements apply to overwhelming transport areas
(OTAs) for modeling and attainment demonstration, reasonable further
progress, and reasonably available control technology?

    (a) Attainment demonstration. (1) An area classified as an OTA
under 'Sec.  1.904 must submit an attainment demonstration meeting the
requirements of Sec.  51.112, which may be based on:
    (i) photochemical grid modeling conducted for the OTA;
    (ii) attainment demonstrations completed by areas upwind of the
OTA, where the modeling domains include the OTA; or
    (iii) regional or national modeling that demonstrates the area will
attain the 8-hour standard.
    (2) A mid-course review (MCR) is not required for an area
classified as an OTA under Sec.  51.904.
    (b) Reasonable further progress (RFP). An area classified as an OTA
under Sec.  51.904 with an approved attainment demonstration is
considered to have met the RFP obligation under section 172(c)(2) of
the CAA with the measures that will bring the area into attainment by
the attainment date.
    (c) Reasonably available control technology (RACT) and reasonably
available control measures (RACM). For an area classified as an OTA
under Sec.  51.904, the State shall meet the RACT and RACM requirements
of section 172(c)(1) by submitting an attainment demonstration SIP
showing that the area will attain as expeditiously as practicable,
taking into consideration emissions reductions in upwind nonattainment
areas that contribute to the OTAs air quality.
    (d) Contingency measures. Contingency measures must accompany the
attainment demonstration SIP. All subpart 1 ozone areas and subpart 2
areas other than marginal areas need contingency measures. Overwhelming
transport areas may rely on contingency measures adopted by the upwind
contributing areas; however such contingency measures must be
structured to be triggered by a failure in the OTA itself to make RFP
or attain the standard by the applicable date.
[FR Doc. 06-2909 Filed 3-24-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 38 (Monday, February 27, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 11529-11530]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4404]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 14356-000]

Nushagak Electric and Telephone Cooperative, Inc.; Notice of
Preliminary Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting
Comments, Motions To Intervene, and Competing Applications

    On January 25, 2012, the Nushagak Electric and Telephone
Cooperative, Inc. filed an application for a preliminary permit,
pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to
study the feasibility of the Dillingham Area Hydroelectric Project
(Dillingham Project or project) to be located on Elva Creek and Grant
River, near the town of Dillingham, Bristol Bay Borough, Alaska. The
sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit
holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A
preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any
land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters
owned by others without the owners' express permission.
    The proposed project has two developments. The total installed
capacity of both developments would be 3.2 megawatts (MW) and the total
estimated annual generation of the Dillingham Project would be 20.057
gigawatt-hours (GWh).

Lake Elva Development

    The proposed project would consist of the following: (1) A 50-foot-
long, 10-foot-high rock-fill diversion dam constructed on the outlet of
Lake Elva; (2) a 4,100-foot-long, 4-foot-diameter lake tap pipeline;
(3) a 3,200-foot-long, 3- to 3.5-foot-diameter penstock leading from
the lake tap pipeline to the powerhouse; (4) a powerhouse containing
two 0.75-MW Francis turbine/generator units; (5) a 40-foot-long, 20-
foot-wide tailrace discharging flows from the powerhouse into Elva
Creek; (6) a 49-mile-long, 34.5-kilovolt (kV) transmission line
extending from the project powerhouse to a new substation approximately
5 miles north of Dillingham; (7) an approximately 3-mile-long access
road; and (8) appurtenant facilities. The estimated annual generation
of the Lake Elva development would be 7.927 GWh.

Grant Lake Development

    The proposed project would consist of the following: (1) A 900-
foot-long, 20-foot-high rock-fill diversion dam constructed on the
outlet of Grant Lake (main dam); (2) a 1-mile-long, 20-foot-high
diversion canal excavated approximately 1 mile north of the main dam;
(3) a 300-foot-long, 20-foot-high rock-fill diversion dam constructed
at the terminus of the diversion canal; (4) an intake structure on the
diversion dam leading to a 5,000-foot-long, 5-foot-diameter pipeline;
(5) a 3,100-foot-long, 4-foot-diameter penstock leading from the
pipeline to the powerhouse; (6) a powerhouse containing a 1.7-MW Turgo
turbine/generator unit; (7) a 40-foot-long, 20-foot-wide tailrace
discharging flows from the powerhouse into Grant River; (8) a 46-mile-
long, 34.5-kV transmission line extending from the project powerhouse
to a new substation approximately 5 miles north of Dillingham; (9) an
approximately 2.5-mile-long access road; and (10) appurtenant
facilities. The estimated annual generation of the Grant Lake
development would be 12.13 GWh.
    Applicant Contact: Mr. Mike Megli, CEO/General Manager, Nushagak
Electric & Telephone Cooperative, Inc., 557 Kenny Wren Road, P.O. Box
350, Dillingham, AK 99576; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    FERC Contact: Jennifer Harper; phone:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice.
Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements
of 18 CFR 4.36. Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and
competing applications may be filed electronically via the Internet.
See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's
Web site http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. Commenters can
submit brief comments up to 6,000 characters, without prior
registration, using the eComment system at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/ecomment.asp. You must include your name and contact

information at the end of your comments. For assistance, please contact
FERC Online Support at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or toll free at 1-
866-208-3676, or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>. Although the Commission
strongly encourages electronic filing, documents may also be paper-
filed. To paper-file, mail an original and seven copies to: Kimberly D.
Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street
NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    More information about this project, including a copy of the
application, can be viewed or printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of
Commission's Web site at  http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp.
Enter the docket number (P-14356) in the docket number field to access
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support.

    Dated: February 16, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-4404 Filed 2-24-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P