[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 47 (Thursday, March 10, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 12588-12590]
[FR Doc No: 2016-05388]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[Docket Number USCG-2016-0155]
RIN 1625-AA00

Safety Zone; Upper Mississippi River 321.4 to 321.6; Quincy, IL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for
all waters of the Upper Mississippi River (UMR) from mile 321.4 to mile
321.6. The safety zone is needed to protect persons, property, and
infrastructure from potential damage and safety hazards associated with
work being completed on new power lines across the river. Entry of
vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically
authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP). Deviation from the safety
zone may be requested and will be considered on a case-by-case basis as
specifically authorized by the COTP or a designated representative.

DATES: This rule is effective from 7:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. daily
beginning on March 21, 2016 through April 1, 2016.

ADDRESSES: To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being
available in the docket, go to http://www.regulations.gov, type USCG-
2016-0155 in the ``SEARCH'' box and click ``SEARCH.'' Click on Open
Docket Folder on the line associated with this rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have questions on this rule,
call or email LCDR Sean Peterson, Chief of Prevention, U.S. Coast
Guard; telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Table of Abbreviations

BNM Broadcast Notice to Mariners
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
COTP Captain of the Port
DHS Department of Homeland Security
FR Federal Register
NPRM Notice of proposed rulemaking
Sec.  Section
UMR Upper Mississippi River
U.S.C. United States Code

II. Background Information and Regulatory History

    The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice
and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This
provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and
opportunity to comment when the agency finds good cause that those
procedures are ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest.'' Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good
cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
with respect to this rule because Ameren notified the Coast Guard on
February 17, 2016, that this work will require helicopters to stretch
the power lines across the river. Due to the risks associated with this
work crossing the navigable channel, a closure is needed. It would be
impracticable to publish a NPRM because the safety zone must be
established beginning March 21, 2016. Broadcast Notices to Mariners
(BNM) and information sharing with waterway users will update mariners
of the safety zone and enforcement times during the operations.
    We are issuing this rule, and under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast
Guard finds that good cause exists for making it effective less than 30
days after publication in the Federal Register. Providing 30 days
notice would be impracticable because immediate action is needed to
protect vessels from the hazards associated with the rope crossing the
navigable channel.

III. Legal Authority and Need for Rule

    The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C.
1231. The COTP UMR has determined that potential hazards associated
with using helicopters to stretch power lines across the navigational
channel presents safety concerns for anyone within this limited area of
the UMR. This rule provides additional safety measures, to protect
persons and vessels, in the form of a safety zone from mile 321.4 to
mile 321.6 on the UMR to protect those in the area and for the Coast
Guard to maintain navigational safety.

IV. Discussion of the Rule

    The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone prohibiting
access to the UMR from mile 321.4 to mile 321.6, extending the entire
width of the river from 7:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. daily beginning on
March 21, 2016 and scheduled to end on April 1, 2016, or until
conditions allow for safe navigation, whichever occurs earlier.
Deviation from the safety zone may be requested and will be considered
on a case-by-case basis as specifically authorized by the COTP or a
designated representative. The COTP may be contacted by telephone at
314-269-2332 or can be reached by VHF-FM channel 16.

V. Regulatory Analyses

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

A. Regulatory Planning and Review

    Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing
rules, and of promoting flexibility. This rule has not been designated
a ``significant regulatory action,'' under Executive Order 12866.
Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and
Budget. This rule establishes a temporary safety zone limiting access
to the UMR from mile 321.4 to mile 321.6. Notifications of enforcement
times will be communicated to the marine community via BNM. The impacts
on navigation will be limited to ensure the safety of mariners and
vessels during the period that the helicopters will be pulling the
power lines across the navigational channel. Deviation requests

will be reviewed and considered on a case-by-case basis.

B. Impact on Small Entities

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

C. Collection of Information

    This rule will not call for a new collection of information under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).

D. Federalism and Indian Tribal Governments

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

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

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

F. Environment

    We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security
Management Directive 023-01 and Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, which
guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that
this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or
cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This
rule involves a safety zone on the UMR from mile 321.4 to mile 321.6.
It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph 34(g)
of Figure 2-1 of the Commandant Instruction. An environmental analysis
checklist supporting this determination and a Categorical Exclusion
Determination are available in the docket where indicated under
ADDRESSES. We seek any comments or information that may lead to the
discovery of a significant environmental impact from this rule.

G. Protest Activities

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

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

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

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

PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS

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

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

0
2. Add Sec.  165.T08-0155 to read as follows:

Sec.  165.T08-0155  Safety Zone; Upper Mississippi River 321.4 to
321.6; Quincy, IL.

    (a) Location. The following area is a safety zone: All waters of
the Upper Mississippi River mile 321.4 to 321.6, extending the entire
width of the river.
    (b) Definitions. As used in this section, designated representative
means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain,
petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel and a
Federal, State, and local officer designated by or assisting the
Captain of the Port Upper Mississippi River (COTP) in the enforcement
of the safety zone.
    (c) Regulations. (1) Under the general safety zone regulations in
subpart C of this part, you may not enter the safety zone described in
paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the COTP or the
COTP's designated representative.
    (2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's
representative via VHF-FM channel 16, or through Coast Guard Sector
Upper Mississippi River at<PHONE_NUMBER>. Those in the safety zone must
comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP
or the COTP's designated representative.
    (d) Effective and enforcement period. This rule is effective and
will be enforced from 7:00 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. daily beginning on
March 21, 2016 through April 1, 2016.

    Dated: March 3, 2016.
M.L. Malloy,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port Upper Mississippi River.
[FR Doc. 2016-05388 Filed 3-9-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 32 (Tuesday, February 18, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9251-9252]
[FR Doc No: 2014-03504]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID: FEMA-2014-0006; OMB No. 1660-0011]

Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Debt Collection Financial Statement

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency, as part of its
continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites
the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity
to comment on a revision of a currently approved information
collection. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,
this notice seeks comments concerning the collection of information
related to disaster program accounts and debts receivable.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before April 21, 2014.

ADDRESSES: To avoid duplicate submissions to the docket, please use
only one of the following means to submit comments:
    (1) Online. Submit comments at http://www.regulations.gov under
Docket ID FEMA-2014-0006. Follow the instructions for submitting
comments.
    (2) Mail. Submit written comments to Docket Manager, Office of
Chief Counsel, DHS/FEMA, 500 C Street, SW., Room 8NE, Washington, DC
20472-3100.
    All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket
ID. Regardless of the method used for submitting comments or material,
all submissions will be posted, without change, to the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov, and will include any
personal information you provide. Therefore, submitting this
information makes it public. You may wish to read the Privacy Act
notice that is available via the link in the footer of http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Contact Mary Schneider, Chief, Debt
Management Unit, FEMA Finance Center, Office of the Chief Financial
Officer, FEMA, at<PHONE_NUMBER> for further information. You may
contact the Records Management Division for copies of the proposed
collection of information at facsimile number<PHONE_NUMBER> or email
address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Debt Collection Improvement Act as
amended (31 U.S.C. 3701, et seq.), the Federal Claims Collection
Standards (31 CFR 901), and DHS regulations (6 CFR 11); the
Administrator of FEMA is: (1) Required to attempt collection of all
debts owed to the United States arising out of activities of FEMA; and
(2) for debts not exceeding $100,000, authorized to compromise such
debts or terminate collection action completely where it appears that
no person is liable for such debt or has the present or prospective
financial ability to pay a significant sum, or that the cost of
collecting such debt is likely to exceed the amount of the recovery (31
U.S.C. 3711 (a)(2)).

Collection of Information

    Title: Debt Collection Financial Statement.
    Type of Information Collection: Revision of a currently approved
information collection.
    OMB Number: 1660-0011.
    FEMA Forms: FEMA Form127-0-1, Debt Collection Financial Statement.
    Abstract: FEMA may request debtors to provide personal financial
information on FEMA Form 127-0-1 concerning their current financial
position. With this information, FEMA evaluates whether to allow its
debtors to pay their FEMA debts under installment repayment agreements
and if so, under what terms. FEMA also uses this data to determine
whether to compromise, suspend, or completely terminate collection
efforts on respondent's debts. This data is also used to locate the
debtor's assets if the debts are sent for judicial enforcement.
    Affected Public: Individuals or households.
    Number of Respondents: 2,000.
    Number of Responses: 2,000.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 1,500 hours.

                                                       Estimated Annualized Burden Hours and Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Total
                                Form Name/form       No. of          No. of       Total No.    Avg. burden per     annual    Avg. hourly   Total annual
      Type of respondent            number         respondents    responses per       of        response  (in   burden  (in   wage rate     respondent
                                                                   respondent     responses        hours)          hours)                      cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Individuals or Households....  Debt Collection            2,000               1        2,000  45 minutes......        1,500       $33.74      $50,610.00
                                Financial
                                Statement/FEMA
                                Form 127-0-1.
                              --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total....................  ................           2,000  ..............        2,000  ................        1,500  ...........      $50,610.00
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Note: The ``Avg. Hourly Wage Rate'' for each respondent includes a 1.4 multiplier to reflect a fully-loaded wage rate.

    Estimated Cost: The estimated annual cost to respondents for the
hour burden is $50,610.00. There are no annual costs to respondents
operations and maintenance costs for technical services. There is no
annual start-up or capital costs. The cost to the Federal Government is
$189,319.75.

Comments

    Comments may be submitted as indicated in the ADDRESSES caption
above. Comments are solicited to (a) evaluate whether the proposed data
collection is necessary for the proper performance of the agency,
including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b)
evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (c) enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) minimize the burden
of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including
through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection techniques or other forms of information
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

    Dated: February 6, 2014.
Charlene D. Myrthil,
Director, Records Management Division, Mission Support Bureau, Federal
Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
[FR Doc. 2014-03504 Filed 2-14-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-19-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 73 (Monday, April 19, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 20382]
[FR Doc No: 2021-07950]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4590-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2021-0001]

Louisiana; Major Disaster and Related Determinations

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This is a notice of the Presidential declaration of a major
disaster for the State of Louisiana (FEMA-4590-DR), dated March 9,
2021, and related determinations.

DATES: The declaration was issued March 9, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Webster, Office of Response and
Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW,
Washington, DC 20472,<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, in a letter
dated March 9, 2021, the President issued a major disaster declaration
under the authority of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq. (the ``Stafford
Act''), as follows:

    I have determined that the damage in the State of Louisiana
resulting from severe winter storms during the period of February 11
to February 19, 2021, is of sufficient severity and magnitude to
warrant a major disaster declaration under the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.
(the ``Stafford Act''). Therefore, I declare that such a major
disaster exists in the State of Louisiana.
    In order to provide Federal assistance, you are hereby
authorized to allocate from funds available for these purposes such
amounts as you find necessary for Federal disaster assistance and
administrative expenses.
    You are authorized to provide Individual Assistance in the
designated areas; assistance for emergency protective measures
(Category B), including direct Federal assistance, under the Public
Assistance program and Hazard Mitigation throughout the state; and
any other forms of assistance under the Stafford Act that you deem
appropriate subject to completion of Preliminary Damage Assessments
(PDAs).
    Consistent with the requirement that Federal assistance be
supplemental, any Federal funds provided under the Stafford Act for
Public Assistance, Hazard Mitigation, and Other Needs Assistance
will be limited to 75 percent of the total eligible costs.
    Further, you are authorized to make changes to this declaration
for the approved assistance to the extent allowable under the
Stafford Act.

    The time period prescribed for the implementation of section
310(a), Priority to Certain Applications for Public Facility and Public
Housing Assistance, 42 U.S.C. 5153, shall be for a period not to exceed
six months after the date of this declaration.
    The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hereby gives notice
that pursuant to the authority vested in the Administrator, under
Executive Order 12148, as amended, John E. Long, of FEMA is appointed
to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this major disaster.
    The following areas of the State of Louisiana have been designated
as adversely affected by this major disaster:

    Avoyelles, Bienville, Bossier, Caddo, Calcasieu, Catahoula,
Claiborne, Concordia, DeSoto, East Baton Rouge, Franklin, Grant,
LaSalle, Madison, Natchitoches, Ouachita, Rapides, Red River,
Richland, Sabine, Webster, West Carroll, and Winn Parishes for
Individual Assistance.
    Emergency protective measures (Category B), including direct
federal assistance for all 64 parishes within the State of
Louisiana.
    All areas within the State of Louisiana are eligible for
assistance under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.

    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.

Robert J. Fenton,
Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Administrator, Federal
Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2021-07950 Filed 4-16-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-23-P


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 215 (Monday, November 7, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 78043-78048]
[FR Doc No: 2016-26593]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 49 and 52

[EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0782; FRL-9954-88-OAR]
RIN 2060-AS56

Rescission of Preconstruction Permits Issued Under the Clean Air
Act

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is promulgating
amendments to the EPA's federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) regulations to remove a date restriction from the Permit
Rescission provision. Other than removing the date restriction, this
final rule does not alter the criteria under which a new source review
(NSR) permit may be rescinded. This final rule also clarifies that a
rescission of a permit is not automatic and corrects an outdated cross-
reference to another part of the PSD regulations. The EPA is also
adding a corresponding Permit Rescission provision in the federal
regulations that apply to major sources in nonattainment areas of
Indian country.

DATES: This final rule is effective on December 7, 2016.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0782. All documents in the docket are
listed on the http://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e.,
confidential business information or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly
available docket materials are available electronically in http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further general information on
this rulemaking, contact Ms. Jessica Montanez, Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (C504-03),
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, by phone at (919) 54l-3407, or by
email at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Regulated entities. The Administrator determined that this action
is subject to the provisions of Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) section
307(d). CAA section 307(d)(1)(V) (the provisions of CAA section 307(d)
apply to ``such other actions as the Administrator may determine'').
These are amendments to existing regulations and could affect any
facility that is eligible for a PSD permit rescission for any such
permit issued by the EPA, reviewing authorities that implement the
EPA's regulations through delegation or reviewing authorities that
incorporate the federal PSD regulations by reference.

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

    Entities potentially affected by this final rulemaking include
reviewing authorities responsible for the permitting of stationary
sources of air pollution, including the following: The EPA Regional
offices; air agencies that have delegated authority to implement the
EPA regulations; and air agencies that administer EPA-approved air
programs that incorporate the federal NSR rules by reference. Entities
also potentially affected by this final rulemaking include owners and
operators of stationary sources subject to NSR permitting programs
under the CAA that are administered by the entities described
previously.

B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?

    In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this notice will be posted at: https://www.epa.gov/nsr/nsr-regulatory-actions. Upon publication in the Federal Register, only the published
version may be considered the final official version of the notice, and
will govern in the case of any discrepancies between the Federal
Register published version and any other version.

C. How is this document organized?

    The information presented in this document is organized as follows:

I. General Information
    A. Does this action apply to me?
    B. Where can I get a copy of this document and other related
information?
    C. How is this document organized?
II. Background for Final Rulemaking
III. Overview of the Final Revisions
    A. What are the final revisions to the 40 CFR part 52 Permit
Rescission provision?
    B. What are the final revisions to the 40 CFR part 49 Indian
country nonattainment NSR provisions?
    C. What is the basis for the EPA's final revisions?
IV. Environmental Justice Considerations
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
    A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and
Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review
    B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)
    C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
    D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)
    E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
    F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
    G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)
    J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
    K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)
    L. Judicial Review
VI. Statutory Authority

II. Background for Final Rulemaking

    On June 14, 2016, the EPA proposed revisions to the Permit
Rescission provision in the EPA's federal PSD regulations at 40 CFR
52.21(w). The proposed revisions remove a date restriction from this
provision, clarify that a rescission of a permit is contingent on the
reviewing authority's concurrence with a rescission applicant's
demonstration that the PSD permit provisions ``would not apply to the
source or modification,'' and correct an outdated cross-reference to
another part of the PSD regulations. The EPA also proposed to add a
corresponding Permit Rescission provision in the federal regulations
that apply to major sources in nonattainment areas of Indian country.
    The preamble to the proposal provided an overview of the NSR
permitting program and a brief history of the previous revisions to the
Permit Rescission provision regulations. The preamble also explained
the EPA's basis for the proposed changes and rationale. Because the EPA
is finalizing this rule as it was proposed, this final rulemaking
notice does not repeat that discussion.
    The 30-day public comment period for the proposed rule closed on
July 14, 2016. In Section III of this document, we summarize and
respond to the comments received and explain the

basis for the regulatory text revisions made by this final rule.

III. Overview of the Final Revisions

A. What are the final revisions to the 40 CFR part 52 Permit Rescission
provision?

    In this final rule, we are making three specific revisions to the
Permit Rescission provision in the PSD regulations at 40 CFR part 52.
First, we are revising 40 CFR 52.21(w)(2) to remove the July 30, 1987,
date restriction. Second, we are revising 40 CFR 52.21(w)(3) to change
the word ``shall'' to ``may'' to make clear that this provision does
not create a mandatory duty on the Administrator to grant a rescission
request. Lastly, we are revising 40 CFR 52.21(w)(1) to appropriately
cross reference paragraph (r) and not paragraph (s) of our PSD
regulations.
    The PSD Permit Rescission provision is applicable for the EPA
Regions and other reviewing authorities that are delegated authority by
the EPA to issue PSD permits on behalf of the EPA (via a delegation
agreement). The provision also applies to reviewing authorities that
have their own PSD rules approved by the EPA in a State Implementation
Plan (SIP) where the SIP incorporates 40 CFR 52.21(w) by reference.

B. What are the final revisions to the 40 CFR part 49 Indian country
nonattainment NSR provisions?

    This final rule adds a provision to 40 CFR 49.172(f) to provide
authority to rescind nonattainment new source review (NA NSR) permits
in Indian country. This provision mirrors the provision being finalized
at 40 CFR 52.21(w) by providing the EPA and delegated permit reviewing
authorities the authority to rescind NA NSR permits where the
application for rescission adequately shows that the NA NSR rules for
Indian country at 40 CFR 49.166 through 49.173 would not apply to the
source or modification. This provision also includes methods for
adequate notice of the rescission determination in accordance with the
public noticing requirements for NA NSR permits in Indian country.

C. What is the basis for the EPA's final revisions?

1. Removal of the July 30, 1987, Date Restriction in 40 CFR 52.21(w)(2)
a. Summary of the EPA's Basis for This Action
    As stated in the proposal, experience has shown that there can be
circumstances where the EPA believes rescission of a permit issued
under the PSD rules in effect after July 30, 1987, may be appropriate
under the criteria in paragraph (w)(3) of the Permit Rescission
provision. In one recent instance, the EPA determined a need for
rescission authority after the Supreme Court of the United States
(Supreme Court) determined that the EPA may not treat greenhouse gases
(GHGs) as an air pollutant for purposes of determining whether a source
is a major source required to obtain a PSD permit. Utility Air
Regulatory Group v. Environmental Protection Agency, 134 S.Ct. 2427
(2014) (``UARG''). However, because of the date restriction in the
former PSD Permit Rescission provision, the EPA had to revise this
Permit Rescission regulation to expressly allow rescission of permits
granted for sources based solely on the emissions of GHGs. May 7, 2015;
80 FR 26183. The EPA believes removal of the date restriction is
appropriate to improve implementation efficiency and eliminate the need
to conduct similar targeted rulemakings in the future.
b. Summary of Comments
    Two commenters generally supported the removal of the date
restriction. One commenter believes that the right for a source to
request a permit rescission should be ongoing. The other commenter
noted that the amendment is intended to allow a CAA permit holder the
ability to request that the EPA rescind permits that would no longer be
required under the current regulations. Nevertheless, another commenter
questioned why the revision was necessary since (1) the EPA already
amended the Permit Rescission provision to accommodate rescission of
permits affected by the UARG decision and (2) the EPA has made only two
other minor adjustments to rescind certain permits over the past 36
years.
c. EPA Response
    We agree with those commenters that support removal of the July 30,
1987, date restriction from the PSD Permit Rescission provision. As we
discussed in the proposed rule preamble, the EPA has periodically found
a need to amend this provision. Although the instances under which PSD
permit rescissions are appropriate are limited and the EPA has made a
limited number of amendments to 40 CFR 52.21(w) since it was initially
adopted, the purpose for these rule amendments is forward-looking. We
expect future instances under which rescission of PSD permits issued
after July 30, 1987, would be appropriate under the criteria in
paragraph (w)(3) of the current Permit Rescission provision. Therefore,
in this final rule the EPA is finalizing the removal of the July 30,
1987, date to obviate the need to make further changes to this
regulation in the future.
2. Revision to 40 CFR 52.21(w)(3) To Clarify That the EPA Administrator
Does Not Have a Mandatory Duty To Grant a Rescission Request
a. Summary of the EPA's Basis
    The EPA proposed to revise 40 CFR 52.21(w)(3) to make it clear that
the provision does not create a mandatory duty on the Administrator to
grant a rescission request. Specifically, the EPA proposed to replace
the word ``shall'' with the word ``may'' in this provision to make
clear that the Administrator may deny a permit rescission request if he
or she does not concur with the analysis by the permit applicant that
40 CFR 52.21 ``would not apply to the source or modification.''

b. Summary of Comments

    One commenter recommended that we retain the existing language in
40 CFR 52.21(w)(3) as ``shall'' instead of ``may.'' The commenter
believed that the existing language in the regulation provides the
Administrator discretion to grant a rescission request since the ``if''
in that regulatory text shows that a source has the burden of proof to
establish that a source is eligible for the permit rescission and there
is no guaranteed EPA approval.

c. EPA Response

    The EPA continues to believe that it is appropriate to change the
word ``shall'' to ``may'' in this provision to clarify that the
Administrator may deny a permit rescission request if he or she does
not concur with the analysis by the permit applicant that 40 CFR 52.21
``would not apply to the source or modification.'' The word ``shall''
is commonly used in statutes and regulations to describe a mandatory
requirement. Even if other words in 40 CFR 52.21(w)(3) convey that a
reviewing authority has discretion to deny a request, the EPA believes
the regulation should be clear. We believe it is clearer to use
discretionary language that conveys the meaning more directly so one
does not have to rely on context to determine the meaning. As stated in
the proposal, the EPA does not believe this revision changes the
meaning or intent of the existing provision, but rather clarifies the
discretion held by the Administrator. Thus, the EPA is finalizing this
revision in this final rule.

3. Corrected Cross-Reference in 40 CFR 52.21(w)(1)

a. Summary of the EPA's Basis

    We proposed to correct 40 CFR 52.21(w)(1) because it currently
references 40 CFR 52.21(s), which pertains to environmental impact
statements. 40 CFR 52.21(w)(1) pertains to permit expiration and
rescission, so the correct reference should be 40 CFR 52.21(r), which
pertains to permit expiration in our federal PSD regulations.

b. Summary of Comments and Final EPA Action

    The EPA received no comments on this proposed correction and is
finalizing this correction as proposed. We believe 40 CFR 52.21(r) is
the correct reference for 40 CFR 52.21(w)(1).

4. Addition of Permit Rescission Authority to the Nonattainment NSR
Regulations for Indian Country

a. Summary of the EPA's Basis

    We also proposed to add a provision in 40 CFR 49.172(f) to provide
rescission authority for major NA NSR permits in Indian country. This
new regulatory text includes public notice requirements consistent with
the noticing requirements applicable to major NA NSR permits in Indian
country. 40 CFR 49.171. The EPA has determined it is appropriate to
allow rescission of NA NSR permits in Indian country in limited, case-
specific circumstances for the same reasons it is appropriate to allow
rescission of PSD permits in narrow circumstances. Creating a Permit
Rescission provision in 40 CFR part 49 for major NA NSR permits in
Indian country would ensure that all federal programs for major source
permitting have permit rescission authority.

b. Summary of Comments and Final EPA Action

    The EPA received no comments on this proposed provision. The EPA is
finalizing the addition of permit rescission authority for major NA NSR
permits in Indian country as proposed.
5. Other Issues Raised in Comments
a. Establishing Specific Criteria for Granting or Denying a Permit
Rescission Request
i. Summary of Comments
    Various commenters requested that the EPA establish specific
criteria under which the EPA would grant or deny a permit rescission
request. Commenters noted that without such criteria, implementation of
the Permit Rescission provision may be inconsistent between reviewing
authorities with EPA-approved SIPs incorporating 40 CFR 52.21(w) and
reviewing authorities that, for example, implement the federal PSD
rules through delegation.
    One commenter stated that the EPA should withdraw its proposal and
re-propose the amendment to the PSD Permit Rescission provision and the
addition of this provision to the major NA NSR program in Indian
country with specific criteria for when a permittee would be eligible
for rescission
    Another commenter argued that in the preamble and through other
discussions between the EPA and the National Association of Clean Air
Agencies members, the EPA staff have indicated that our intent is to
limit permit rescissions to cases in which court decisions have changed
the PSD rules or situations in which the PSD rules have changed and
gone through all comment periods and reconsiderations. The commenter
added that the proposed rule language does not state this.
ii. EPA Response
    As stated in the proposal, the EPA believes there are a limited
number of circumstances where a permit rescission is justified and that
permit rescission requests are very case-specific. Review of a
rescission request requires an in-depth evaluation of the source, the
rules in place at the time, and the court decisions or other events
affecting the source before it can be determined that the requirements
of 40 CFR 52.21 ``would not apply to the source or modification.'' 40
CFR 52.21(w)(3). The principal aim of this targeted rulemaking action
is to remove an unnecessary impediment to rescissions of permits issued
after the date specified in the existing version of 40 CFR 52.21(w) and
therefore avoid the need for future revisions to 40 CFR 52.21(w).
Although the EPA generally believes permit rescissions are warranted in
a limited category of circumstances, specifically defining that
category of circumstances would be contrary to the goals of this rule
to provide flexibility going forward to address circumstances that may
not have been previously anticipated or experienced. Therefore, we do
not believe it is appropriate to develop specific a priori criteria for
when a permit rescission would be granted or denied, nor do we agree
with the commenter that argued that permit rescissions are limited only
to cases in which court decisions have changed the PSD rules or
situations in which the PSD rules have changed and gone through all
comment periods and reconsiderations. Thus, the EPA is not including
specific criteria for PSD permit rescissions and NA NSR permit
rescissions in Indian country in this final rule.
b. Clarifying Whether the EPA Would Grant Permit Rescission Requests
Under Specific Circumstances
i. Summary of Comments
    A few commenters provided specific examples of circumstances where
they believe PSD permit rescissions or rescission of PSD related terms
and conditions in other types of air permits could qualify for permit
rescission. These circumstances include:
    1. Requesting PSD permit rescissions when situations such as energy
efficiency improvements and changes in operations cause a source to no
longer be a major PSD stationary source.
    2. Allowing a permit rescission when a pollutant is no longer
regulated under the PSD program because the EPA established a CAA
section 112 emission limitation, as long as existing limitations in the
PSD permits are less restrictive than the applicable section 112
limitations and no increase in emission of another NSR regulated
pollutant would be caused by the rescission.
    3. Allowing PSD permits to be rescinded after a source takes limits
at a future date to restrict emissions below the major source
thresholds.
    One commenter also stated that the EPA should allow a source to
request removal of related obligations including synthetic minor PSD
permit limits or no longer applicable or obsolete PSD conditions in its
federal or PSD-approved state or local construction permit(s) and/or
title V operating permits.
ii. EPA Response
    The EPA's longstanding policy has been to evaluate permit
rescission requests on a case-by-case basis since there are multiple
factors that need to be considered when evaluating whether a source is
eligible for a PSD permit rescission. As we stated previously, PSD
permit rescissions require an in-depth evaluation of the source, the
rules in place at the time, and the court decisions or other events
affecting the source before it can be determined that the requirements
of 40 CFR 52.21 ``would not apply to the source or modification.'' 40
CFR 52.21(w)(3). As such, the EPA cannot say a priori whether the
circumstances raised by the commenters would always be eligible or not
for permit rescission. In addition, based on past experience, the EPA

believes that it would not be typical for major sources to seek PSD
permit rescissions.
    Furthermore, the scope of this rule is limited to PSD and NA NSR
permitting and does not address the revision or rescission of permits
that are not major NSR permits. Therefore, whether to allow a source to
request removal of related obligations in non-major NSR permits, such
as synthetic minor permits or title V operating permits, is outside the
scope of this rulemaking.
c. Specifying That PSD Permits Issued Before the Promulgation of the
2007 Final Ethanol Rule Can Be Rescinded Under the Revised Permit
Rescission Provision
i. Summary of Comments
    A couple of commenters asked the EPA to clarify that the revised
PSD Permit Rescission provision would apply to PSD permits for fuel
ethanol plants that were issued before July 2, 2007, specifically fuel
ethanol plants that are no longer considered ``major'' under the
revised major source applicability threshold for ``chemical processing
plants.'' According to one of these commenters, the EPA acknowledged in
the Ethanol Rule that PSD permits issued under the 100 tons per year
(tpy) major source threshold for sources that would not trigger the
revised 250 tpy threshold would be eligible to take advantage of the
PSD Permit Rescission provision. 72 FR 24060, 24071.
    In addition, this same commenter claims that the situation
presented by the Ethanol rule is analogous to the situations described
in the preamble where the EPA previously revised the Permit Rescission
provision to respond to the United States District of Columbia Circuit
(D.C. Circuit) Court decision in Alabama Power and when the EPA
transitioned from the Total Suspended Particulates to the Particulate
Matter 10 micrometers in diameter or less indicator for the Particulate
Matter National Ambient Air Quality Standard.
    Finally, the commenter claims that the equal protection clause,
found in 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article
I, Section I of the Wisconsin State Constitution, supports rescission
of pre-2007 PSD permits issued for fuel ethanol facilities. According
to the commenter, treating ethanol facilities built prior to the
adoption of the Ethanol Rule (``Pre-2007) and those built after the
adoption of the Ethanol Rule differently is a disparity between two
similarly situated classes distinguished only by year.
ii. EPA Response
    For the reasons stated in Sections III.C.5.a and III.C.5.b of this
rule, we do not believe it is appropriate in this rule to address
specific circumstances when a permit rescission may be granted or
denied. In addition and as one commenter argues, the EPA did not
acknowledge in the Ethanol Rule that PSD permits issued under the 100
tpy major source threshold for sources that would not trigger the
revised 250 tpy threshold would be eligible to take advantage of the
PSD Permit Rescission provision discussed in this rule.
    Historically, corn milling facilities that produced ethanol only
for fuel use were considered by the EPA to be part of the ``chemical
process plants'' category while facilities that produced ethanol only
for human consumption were not considered by the EPA to be in that
category. Under the PSD definition of major stationary source,
``chemical process plants'' is one of the source categories listed in
40 CFR 52.21(b)(1)(i) for which a source with a potential to emit a
regulated NSR pollutant \1\ in an amount equal to or higher than 100
tpy is subject to PSD permitting. All other non-listed source
categories are subject to permitting if the source has the potential to
emit a regulated NSR pollutant in an amount equal to or higher than 250
tpy. On May 1, 2007, the EPA modified the definition of the ``chemical
process plants'' category of sources by removing corn milling
facilities that produce ethanol only for fuel use from this definition.
This change established the same 250 tpy major source applicability
threshold for ethanol producing facilities regardless of whether a
source produces ethanol for human consumption, for fuel, or for an
industrial purpose.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ As defined in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(50).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 2, 2007, the EPA received a petition for reconsideration
pursuant to section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, which the EPA denied in
its entirety on March 27, 2008.\2\ On March 2, 2009, the EPA received a
second petition for reconsideration, and we are currently in the
process of considering that petition. Furthermore, this rule and the
EPA's denial of the first petition for reconsideration have been
challenged in the D.C. Circuit. That litigation is currently being held
in abeyance pending the outcome of the second petition for
reconsideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Details of the EPA's denial of the petition for
reconsideration can be found at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-12/documents/20080327letter.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since this second petition for reconsideration is currently under
evaluation by the EPA, we believe it is premature to say in this rule
whether pre-2007 fuel ethanol PSD permits would meet the regulatory
criteria for a permit rescission under 40 CFR 52.21(w)(3).
d. Comments on the Scope of the Proposed Revisions to the Permit
Rescission Provision
i. Summary of Comments
    One commenter would like the EPA to confirm that the amendment does
not allow either the EPA or other reviewing authorities to use the
Permit Rescission provision to unilaterally rescind or suspend a duly
issued CAA NSR permit without the request of the permittee.
Specifically, the commenter would like the EPA to clarify that
officials do not intend for the proposed amendment to authorize any
permit reviewing authority to: (1) Use this provision to either require
updates of state SIPs, or rescind existing SIPs or disapprove future
updates of SIPs (i.e., there is no obligation based on this rule change
for states to modify SIPs); (2) Use the proposed amendment to rescind
any permit without a written request from the owner/operator of the
source; (3) Use the proposed amendment to trigger any changes to
existing permitted emission limits (e.g., Potential to Emit, Plantwide
Applicability Limits, applicable New Source Performance Standards, or
unit-specific permit limits); or (4) Use the proposed amendment
provision in any way that would alter the calculation (for an affected
source) of significant emissions increase or net significant emission
increase.
ii. EPA Response
    The amended regulatory text in the Permit Rescission provision does
not allow either the EPA or any other reviewing authorities to
unilaterally rescind or suspend a duly issued CAA NSR permit without
the request of the permittee. These provisions also do not alter other
CAA requirements, such as state SIP provisions on topics other than NSR
permitting. As discussed in the next section, the revisions also should
not affect NSR permitting requirements in approved SIPs unless those
SIPs incorporate Sec.  52.21(w) by reference. The Permit Rescission
provision in 40 CFR 49.172(f) and 40 CFR 51.21(w) only applies for the
rescission of PSD permits under the federal PSD permitting regulations
and NA NSR permits in Indian country, respectively, upon request for
rescission application of a permittee when the Administrator

deems such rescission is consistent with the regulatory terms.
e. Comments on State Requirements for PSD Permit Rescissions
i. Summary of Comments
    One commenter would like the EPA to clarify if this final action
applies to states with EPA-approved SIPs. A different commenter argued
that the EPA should allow states with EPA-approved SIP programs to use
existing EPA-approved permitting procedures to rescind PSD permits and
not require states with EPA-approved SIP programs to develop new rules
that mirror 40 CFR 51.21(w)(2).
ii. EPA's Response
    As we stated in the proposal, this final action does not apply to
states with EPA-approved SIPs unless they incorporate 40 CFR 52.21(w)
by reference. We did not propose amendments to 40 CFR part 51 to revise
the permitting provisions applicable to state and local programs.
Therefore, these revisions to the PSD Permit Rescission provision do
not apply to SIP-approved programs unless they incorporate the federal
PSD Permit Rescission provision by reference. States will not be
required to make any changes to their SIP-approved programs as a result
of this rule.

IV. Environmental Justice Considerations

    The revisions being finalized in this rule improve implementation
efficiency for the Permit Rescission provision by eliminating the date
restriction, correcting an outdated cross-reference and clarifying that
a rescission of a permit is not automatic (the Administrator may grant
a PSD permit rescission only if the application shows that the PSD
rules would not apply to the source or modification). In addition, we
are adding a provision in 40 CFR 49.172(f) to provide rescission
authority for major NA NSR permits in Indian country for the same
reasons it is appropriate to allow rescission of PSD permits and to
ensure that all federal programs for major source permitting have
permit rescission authority. Reviews of permit rescission requests
after the finalization of this rule will continue to require an in-
depth evaluation of the source, the rules in place at the time, and the
court decisions or other events affecting the source before it can be
determined that the requirements of 40 CFR 49.166 through 49.173 for
the NA NSR program in Indian country or 40 CFR 52.21 for the PSD
program ``would not apply to the source or modification.'' Thus, we do
not believe that these revisions and additions to the rescission of
federal major NSR permits will have any effect on environmental justice
communities.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive
Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review

    This action is not a significant regulatory action and was
therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
for review.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA)

    This action does not impose any new information collection burden
under PRA. OMB has previously approved the information collection
activities contained in the existing regulations and has assigned OMB
control number 2060-0003 for the PSD and NA NSR permit programs. We
believe that the burden associated with rescinding federal NSR permits
is already accounted for under the approved information collection
requests.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

    I certify that this action will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This
action will not impose any requirements on small entities. Entities
potentially affected directly by this proposal include state, local and
tribal governments and none of these governments would qualify as a
small entity. Other types of small entities are not directly subject to
the requirements of this action.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA)

    This action does not contain any unfunded federal mandate as
described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or
uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable
duty on any state, local or tribal governments or the private sector.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between
the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power
and responsibilities among the various levels of government.

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

    This action does not have tribal implications, as specified in
Executive Order 13175. Specifically, these revisions do not affect the
relationship or distribution of power and responsibilities between the
federal government and Indian tribes. This action only extends the
EPA's permit rescission authority to the EPA regions that currently
implement the NA NSR program in Indian country or tribes that would
like to implement the NA NSR program through a delegation of these
federal rules. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this
action.

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

    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks
that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect
children, per the definition of ``covered regulatory action'' in
section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to
Executive Order 13045 because it does not directly involve an
environmental health risk or safety risk.

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

    This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355,
May 22, 2001), because it is not a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA)

    This action does not involve technical standards.

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

    The EPA believes that this action does not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority
populations, low-income and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    The documentation for this decision is contained in Section IV of
this document titled, ``Environmental Justice Considerations.''

K. Congressional Review Act (CRA)

    This action is subject to the CRA, and the EPA will submit a rule
report to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of
the United States. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).

L. Judicial Review

    Under CAA section 307(b)(1), petitions for judicial review of any
nationally applicable regulation, or any action the Administrator
``finds and publishes'' as based on a determination of nationwide scope
or effect must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit within 60 days of the date the
promulgation, approval, or action appears in the Federal Register. This
action is nationally applicable, as it adds Permit Rescission
provisions to 40 CFR part 49 and revises the rules governing procedures
permit rescissions in 40 CFR part 52. As a result, petitions for review
of this final action must be filed in the United States Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by January 6, 2017. Filing
a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final
action 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 must be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of this action.

VI. Statutory Authority

    The statutory authority for this action is provided by 42 U.S.C.
7401, et seq.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 49

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference.

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference.

    Dated: October 26, 2016.
Gina McCarthy,
Administrator.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I of the
Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 49--INDIAN COUNTRY: AIR QUALITY PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT

0
1. The authority citation for part 49 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart C--General Federal Implementation Plan Provisions

0
2. Section 49.172 is amended by adding paragraph (f) to read as
follows:

Sec.  49.172   Final permit issuance and administrative and judicial
review.

* * * * *
    (f) Can my permit be rescinded? (1) Any permit issued under this
section or a prior version of this section shall remain in effect until
it is rescinded under this paragraph (f).
    (2) An owner or operator of a stationary source or modification who
holds a permit issued under this section for the construction of a new
source or modification that meets the requirement in paragraph (f)(3)
of this section may request that the reviewing authority rescind the
permit or a particular portion of the permit.
    (3) The reviewing authority may grant an application for rescission
if the application shows that Sec. Sec.  49.166 through 49.173 would
not apply to the source or modification.
    (4) If the reviewing authority rescinds a permit under this
paragraph (f), the public shall be given adequate notice of the
rescission determination in accordance with one or more of the
following methods:
    (i) The reviewing authority may mail or email a copy of the notice
to persons on a mailing list developed by the reviewing authority
consisting of those persons who have requested to be placed on such a
mailing list.
    (ii) The reviewing authority may post the notice on its Web site.
    (iii) The reviewing authority may publish the notice in a newspaper
of general circulation in the area affected by the source. Where
possible, the notice may also be published in a Tribal newspaper or
newsletter.
    (iv) The reviewing authority may provide copies of the notice for
posting at one or more locations in the area affected by the source,
such as Post Offices, trading posts, libraries, Tribal environmental
offices, community centers or other gathering places in the community.
    (v) The reviewing authority may employ other means of notification
as appropriate.

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart A--General Provisions

0
4. Section 52.21 is amended by revising paragraphs (w)(1) through (3)
to read as follows:

Sec.  52.21  Prevention of significant deterioration of air quality.

* * * * *
    (w) * * *
    (1) Any permit issued under this section or a prior version of this
section shall remain in effect, unless and until it expires under
paragraph (r) of this section or is rescinded under this paragraph (w).
    (2) An owner or operator of a stationary source or modification who
holds a permit issued under this section for the construction of a new
source or modification that meets the requirement in paragraph (w)(3)
of this section may request that the Administrator rescind the permit
or a particular portion of the permit.
    (3) The Administrator may grant an application for rescission if
the application shows that this section would not apply to the source
or modification.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2016-26593 Filed 11-4-16; 8:45 a.m.]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


DuPont Chambers Works, Deepwater, NJ Facility Response to EPA Questions re: TRI Estimated Releases to Water May 4, 2005 1. Where do the discharges of chlorine, heptachlor and pendimethalin originate from? Is it from plant operations ( manufacturing processes) or from the centralized waste treatment plant? Are the pesticides coming from off site or on site wastewater?

These compounds are associated with off site waste contracts. It is assumed that the inquiry is concerning chlordane, as one of the three pesticides, and not chlorine.

Also, please note that the DuPont Chambers Works has a single WWTP that handles offsite customer waste receipts and on site wastewater from plant operations and treated is discharged through the same NJPDES permitted outfall.

2. Does DuPont Chambers Works report any heptachlor discharges in its DMRs?

Heptachlor is monitored on a quarterly basis along with other priority pollutants. The data report from the full scan of priority pollutants is submitted as an attachment with the DMR reports. In most cases, heptachlor is not detected.

Note that the releases for heptachlor and other compounds only infrequently detected are estimated for TRI reporting purposes by a Toxchem model calculation using a worst case influent loading value. The worst case loading input is based on the maximum levels that could have been received under the outside waste customer contracts.

3. What other chemicals are reported released ( to TRI or PCS/ the state) from the CWT plant?

Attached table lists other chemicals that were reported as releases to water under TRI that are associated with outside waste shipments. It is assumed that this addresses the question re " CWT plant". Again, note that wastewater from DuPont site operations is treated in this same facility and some of these chemicals are also associated with our manufacturing operations. Chemicals currently regulated under 40 CFR 414 ( OCPSF) and in our NJPDES permit ( reported to the state/ PCS database) are: Ammonia, Benzene, Chlorobenzene, Dichlorobenzenes, Ethylbenzene, Hexachlorobenzene, Nitrobenzene, Phenol, Toluene, Chromium, Copper, Lead, Nickel and Zinc.

Note that the discharge permit will be reissued soon with additional pollutants per 40 CFR 437 ( Centralized Waste Treatment). CAS # Component 95 95 4 2,4,5 Trichlorophenol 75 05 8 Acetonitrile 107 18 6 Allyl Alcohol 7664 41 7 Ammonia 1912 24 9 ATRAZINE 71 43 2 Benzene 57 74 9 Chlordane ( 10 lbs)

108 90 7 Chlorobenzene 1319 77 3 Cresol ( mixed isomers)

110 82 7 Cyclohexane 25321 22 6 Dichlorobenzene ( mixed isomers)

Dioxins ( in grams)

100 41 4 Ethylbenzene 107 21 1 Ethylene glycol 50 00 0 Formaldehyde 64 18 6 Formic Acid 76 44 8 Heptachlor ( 10)

118 74 1 Hexachlorobenzene 67 56 1 Methanol 78 93 3 Methyl ethyl ketone 108 10 1 Methyl isobutyl ketone 68 12 2 N, N Dimethyl formamide ( DMF)

71 36 3 n Butyl alcohol 1929 82 4 NITRAPYRIN 98 95 3 Nitrobenzene 108 95 2 Phenol 1336 36 3 Polychlorinated Biphenyls ( 10)

7632 00 0 Sodium Nitrite 75 65 0 Tert butyl alcohol 108 88 3 Toluene 121 44 8 Triethylamine 108 38 3 xylene, m

106 42 3 xylene, p

1330 20 7 xylene CATEGORY COMPOUNDS AMMONIA COMPOUNDS N230 Certain Glycol Ethers N90 Chromium Compounds N100 Copper Compounds CYANIDE COMPOUNDS N420 Lead Compounds N450 Manganese Compounds MERCURY COMPOUNDS ( 10)

N495 Nickel Compounds N511 Nitrate Compounds N982 Zinc Compounds N590 Polycyclic Aromatic Compounds


[Federal Register: July 2, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 128)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 37793-37795]
[DOCID:fr02jy08-9]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2007-28053; Directorate Identifier 2007-NE-18-AD;
Amendment 39-15590; AD 2008-13-27]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; Turbomeca S.A. Arrius 2F Turboshaft
Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: We are adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for the
products listed above. This AD results from mandatory continuing
airworthiness information (MCAI) issued by an aviation authority of
another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an
aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as:

    This AD is issued following a case of non-commanded in-flight
engine shut-down which occurred on an ARRIUS 2F turboshaft engine,
following the seizing of the gas generator. The result may be an
emergency autorotation landing or, at worst, an accident.
    Investigations of this event have revealed that the seizing of
the gas generator was caused by the fracture of the separator cage
of the gas generator front bearing, due to high-cycle fatigue cracks
initiated in the lubrication slots of the separator cage.

We are issuing this AD to prevent uncommanded shutdown of the engine,
which could lead to an accident.

DATES: This AD becomes effective August 6, 2008. The Director of the
Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain
publications listed in this AD as of August 6, 2008.

ADDRESSES: The Docket Operations office is located at Docket Management
Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue,
SE., West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-
0001.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Lawrence, Aerospace Engineer,
Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12
New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax<PHONE_NUMBER>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Discussion

    We issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR

part 39 to include an AD that would apply to the specified products.
That NPRM was published in the Federal Register on August 28, 2007 (72
FR 49236). That NPRM proposed to correct an unsafe condition for the
specified products. The MCAI states that:

    This AD is issued following a case of non-commanded in-flight
engine shut-down which occurred on an Arrius 2F turboshaft engine,
following the seizing of the gas generator. The result may be an
emergency autorotation landing, or, at worst, an accident.
    Investigations of this event have revealed that the seizing of
the gas generator was caused by the fracture of the separator cage
of the gas generator front bearing, due to high-cycle fatigue cracks
initiated in the lubrication slots of the separator cage.
    Modification Tf 12 introduces a new gas generator front bearing
without lubrication slots on the separator cage.

Comments

    We gave the public the opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. We received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of
the cost to the public.

Change to the Compliance End Date

    We have changed the compliance time from ``at the next shop visit
after the effective date of the AD, but no later than April 30, 2008''
to ``at the next shop visit after the effective date of this AD, but no
later than 30 days after the effective date of this AD'' to allow the
operators more time to complete the requirements of this AD.

Conclusion

    We reviewed the available data and determined that air safety and
the public interest require adopting the AD with the changes described
previously. We determined that these changes will not increase the
economic burden on any operator or increase the scope of the AD.

Differences Between This AD and the MCAI or Service Information

    The Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) and
service information require the operators to comply with the
requirements at the next shop visit after the effective date of the AD,
but no later than April 30, 2008. We require compliance at the next
shop visit after the effective date of this AD, but no later than 30
days after the effective date of this AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this AD will affect 61 engines of U.S. registry.
We also estimate that it will take about 10 work-hours per engine to
comply with this AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour.
Required parts will cost about $111,440. Based on these figures, we
estimate the cost of this AD to the U.S. operators to be $6,846,640.
Our cost estimate is exclusive of possible warranty coverage.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. 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.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this AD will not have federalism implications
under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this AD:
    1. Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order
12866;
    2. Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and
    3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or
negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
    We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to
comply with this AD and placed it in the AD docket.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the Docket Operations office
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays. The AD docket contains this AD, the regulatory evaluation,
any comments received, and other information. The street address for
the Docket Operations office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is provided in
the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket
shortly after receipt.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by
reference, Safety.

Adoption of the Amendment

0
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator,
the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

2008-13-27 Turbomeca S.A.: Amendment 39-15590. Docket No. FAA-2007-
28053; Directorate Identifier 2007-NE-18-AD.

Effective Date

    (a) This airworthiness directive (AD) becomes effective August
6, 2008.

Affected ADs

    (b) None.

Applicability

    (c) This AD applies to Turbomeca S.A. Arrius 2F turboshaft
engines that have not incorporated Turbomeca Modification Tf 12A.
These engines are installed on, but not limited to, Eurocopter
EC120B helicopters.

Reason

    (d) European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No. 2007-0057,
dated March 1, 2007, states:
    This AD is issued following a case of non-commanded in-flight
engine shut-down which occurred on an Arrius 2F turboshaft engine,
following the seizing of the gas generator. The result may be an
emergency autorotation landing, or, at worst, an accident.
    Investigations of this event have revealed that the seizing of
the gas generator was caused by the fracture of the separator cage
of the gas generator front bearing, due to high-cycle fatigue cracks
initiated in the lubrication slots of the separator cage.
    Modification Tf12 introduces a new gas generator front bearing
without lubrication slots on the separator cage.

We are issuing this AD to prevent uncommanded shutdown of the
engine, which could lead to an accident.

Actions and Compliance

    (e) Unless already done, do the following actions.

    (1) At the next engine shop visit after the effective date of
this AD, but no later than 30 days after the effective date of this
AD, replace the engine module 02 with a module that incorporates
Turbomeca Modification Tf 12A. Turbomeca Modification Tf 12A
installs into the engine module 02 a new gas generator front bearing
without lubrication slots on the separator cage.
    (2) Use the Instructions to be Incorporated section of Turbomeca
Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 319 72 4012, Update No. 1, dated
September 19, 2006, to do the actions in paragraph (e)(1) of this
AD.

FAA AD Differences

    (f) The Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI)
and service information require the operators to comply with the
requirements at the next shop visit after the effective date of the
AD, but no later than April 30, 2008. We require compliance at the
next shop visit after the effective date of this AD, but no later
than 30 days after the effective date of this AD.

Other FAA AD Provisions

    (g) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Engine Certification Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs
for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR
39.19.

Related Information

    (h) Refer to EASA AD 2007-0057, dated March 1, 2007, for related
information.
    (i) Contact James Lawrence, Aerospace Engineer, Engine
Certification Office, FAA, Engine and Propeller Directorate, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; e-mail:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax (781) 238-
7199, for more information about this AD.

Material Incorporated by Reference

    (j) You must use Turbomeca Mandatory Service Bulletin No. 319 72
4012, Update No. 1, dated September 19, 2006, to do the actions
required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
    (1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of this service information under 5
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
    (2) For service information identified in this AD, contact
Turbomeca, 40220 Tarnos, France; telephone (33) 05 59 74 40 00, fax
(33) 05 59 74 45 15.
    (3) You may review copies at the FAA, New England Region, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA; or at the National Archives
and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the
availability of this material at NARA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>, or go
to: http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.

    Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on June 18, 2008.
Diane Cook,
Acting Manager, Engine and Propeller Directorate, Aircraft
Certification Service.
[FR Doc. E8-14311 Filed 7-1-08; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 222 (Monday, November 22, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 66293]
[FR Doc No: 2021-25403]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. PL21-3-000]

Technical Conference on Greenhouse Gas Mitigation: Natural Gas
Act Sections 3 and 7 Authorizations; Notice Inviting Technical
Conference Comments

    On November 19, 2021, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
(Commission) will convene a Commission staff-led technical conference
to discuss methods natural gas companies may use to mitigate the
effects of direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions resulting from
Natural Gas Act sections 3 and 7 authorizations.
    All interested persons are invited to file post-technical
conference comments to address issues raised during the technical
conference and identified in the Supplemental Notices of Technical
Conference issued on October 1, 2021, and November 9, 2021. For
reference, the questions included in the Supplemental Notices are
included below. Commenters need not answer all of the questions but are
encouraged to organize responses using the numbering and order in the
questions below. Commenters are also invited to reference material
previously filed in this docket but are encouraged to avoid repetition
or replication of previous material. Comments are due on Tuesday,
December 14, 2021.
    Comments may be filed electronically via the internet.\1\
Instructions are available on the Commission's website http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling.asp. For assistance, please contact
FERC Online Support at [email protected] or toll free at 1-
866-208-3676, or for TTY,<PHONE_NUMBER>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) (2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For more information about this notice, please contact
[email protected].

    Dated: November 16, 2021.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.

Post-Technical Conference Questions for Comment

1. The Level of Mitigation for a Proposed Project's Reasonably
Foreseeable Greenhouse Gas Emissions

    a. When determining the amount of reasonably foreseeable GHG
emissions associated with a proposed project, how could the Commission
consider: Project utilization projections; State or regional natural
gas usage projections from Public Utility Commissions or other
entities; individual emissions data for industrial or electric
generation customers; known netting effects from displacement of higher
or lower emitting sources, including displacement that may occur over
the life of the project; or other factors?
    b. What is the appropriate level of mitigation associated with GHG
emissions for a proposed project? Should the Commission determine the
amount of mitigation required on a case-by-case basis or should the
mitigation levels be set at zero, less than significant, or some other
level?

2. Types of Mitigation

    a. What types of physical mitigation associated with GHG emissions
are project sponsors currently using at their facilities? What types of
physical mitigation associated with GHG emissions project sponsors are
currently available to project sponsors? Are there limitations to
physical mitigation measures?
    b. What types of market-based mitigation associated with GHG
emissions are project sponsors currently using? What types of
alternative or market-based mitigation associated with GHG emissions
project sponsors are currently available to project sponsors?
    c. Are market-based mitigation measures effective and verifiable
methods of mitigation over the life of a project? What effects would
this type of mitigation from Commission-jurisdictional projects have on
offset, REC, and GHG compliance markets?
    d. Should project applicants submit mitigation proposals with their
project application? How soon might current project applicants be able
to supplement the record or respond to a Commission data request with
their mitigation proposal?
    e. What factors should the Commission consider in evaluating the
sufficiency of a mitigation proposal?

3. Compliance and Cost Recovery of Mitigation

    a. How could the Commission ensure continued verification and
accounting of GHG mitigation measures since the Commission would need
to monitor and assess mitigation during the life of the project?
    b. Are there federal or state agencies which currently monitor
compliance of GHG mitigation measures? Should the Commission explore
potential interagency agreements or memorandums of understanding with
other federal agencies to monitor compliance of GHG mitigation
measures?
    c. How could the Commission allow project sponsors to recover the
costs of market-based mitigation measures, such as the purchase of
offsets? Would allowing recovery of such costs through an annual
tracker or surcharge be appropriate?

[FR Doc. 2021-25403 Filed 11-19-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">

<META name="generator" content="Scanned Document">
<META name="creation-date" content="11/03/2009 10:38:43 ">
<TITLE>Scanned Document</TITLE>